A place where escape goats go to play
https://notplanetrugby.com/
It's okay, the frog faced cunt is appalled, appalled, to discover that there are Nazis in his Nazi Organization !Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 6:54 pm Some lovely fellas out working the campaign trail for reform in Clacton
You can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.mat the expat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 3:39 amThis exactly - no vote, no voice, no whingingBiffer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 7:56 amWhenever I get the chance to explain this, I point out to younger people that politicians only give a toss about people who vote against them. If you're part of their 'always Labour' or 'always tory' base, they couldn't give a shit. If you don't vote, they couldn't give a shit. So vote against them. For anyone, doesn't matter. But vote.Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2024 11:25 am I didn’t say I agreed with not voting, just that I get some of the reasons why some don’t do it.There are a myriad of reasons why people don’t engage with the political process, from some people thinking the politicians squabbling on tv have no relevance to their lives, through socio-economic reasons for disenfranchisement
Whatever the reasons, “well fuck ‘em if they can’t be arsed” is the very worst response to the problem of low turnout
You think young people are thinking back to the Democrats in the USA 5 years ago and that’s why they are not voting? Might be a push to be honestJM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:27 pmYou can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.mat the expat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 3:39 amThis exactly - no vote, no voice, no whingingBiffer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 7:56 am
Whenever I get the chance to explain this, I point out to younger people that politicians only give a toss about people who vote against them. If you're part of their 'always Labour' or 'always tory' base, they couldn't give a shit. If you don't vote, they couldn't give a shit. So vote against them. For anyone, doesn't matter. But vote.
And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.
And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.
None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.
You think the most online generation ever isn't painfully aware of the extremely current backlash against the democrats?Slick wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:32 pmYou think young people are thinking back to the Democrats in the USA 5 years ago and that’s why they are not voting? Might be a push to be honestJM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:27 pmYou can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.
And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.
And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.
None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.
If you don't vote until there's the perfect candidate; you'll never vote !JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:27 pmYou can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.mat the expat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 3:39 amThis exactly - no vote, no voice, no whingingBiffer wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 7:56 am
Whenever I get the chance to explain this, I point out to younger people that politicians only give a toss about people who vote against them. If you're part of their 'always Labour' or 'always tory' base, they couldn't give a shit. If you don't vote, they couldn't give a shit. So vote against them. For anyone, doesn't matter. But vote.
And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.
And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.
None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.
It's not about a perfect candidate. Lecturing people that they don't have a right to complain if they don't vote while in the same breath telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for, with a system that essentially wastes the vote of huge numbers of people, and a party system that has long been divorced from reality, with the most likely winners offering very little genuine hope for the future... What do you think that achieves?fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:40 pmIf you don't vote until there's the perfect candidate; you'll never vote !JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:27 pmYou can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.
And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.
And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.
None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.
... or else when you do vote, it'll be for a disgustingly mendacious individual like the blonde cunt, or the Orange traitor, who tells you everything is easy, & you can have everything you want & pay nothing.
Democracy is about compromises, & changing course if find you've been lied to, or the explanations, on why things aren't happening aren't credible, but all of this requires paying attention in between GEs, & most people turn off Politics except for a few days a year
Please tell me in our elective dictatorship and munted voting system where the compromise has been over issues like Brexit which has barely been discussed during the election despite the impact it has had. There is fuck all serious discussion on many issues.fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:40 pmIf you don't vote until there's the perfect candidate; you'll never vote !JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:27 pmYou can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.
And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.
And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.
None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.
... or else when you do vote, it'll be for a disgustingly mendacious individual like the blonde cunt, or the Orange traitor, who tells you everything is easy, & you can have everything you want & pay nothing.
Democracy is about compromises, & changing course if find you've been lied to, or the explanations, on why things aren't happening aren't credible, but all of this requires paying attention in between GEs, & most people turn off Politics except for a few days a year
So join a party, vote for the candidates you want, but if you give up and abstain you are just a stain.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:50 pmIt's not about a perfect candidate. Lecturing people that they don't have a right to complain if they don't vote while in the same breath telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for, with a system that essentially wastes the vote of huge numbers of people, and a party system that has long been divorced from reality, with the most likely winners offering very little genuine hope for the future... What do you think that achieves?fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:40 pmIf you don't vote until there's the perfect candidate; you'll never vote !JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:27 pm
You can't tell people that voting is incredibly important while also telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for. It's entirely reasonable for people to refuse to vote - to not give their support to candidates they don't want to support. The system simply does not work for a large number of people and it's facile to pretend otherwise.
And the younger people these days are not blind to what's happening in the world. Everyone is well aware that, for example, the democrats in the USA guilt tripped the younger voters by telling them how important it was that they exercised their right to vote, only for the party to do absolutely fuck all of use while in power, oversee a continued loss of major freedoms, and absolutely shit the bed over Gaza, and then have the nerve to start running the same guilt trip campaign a second time on people who very clearly do not believe them for a second.
And this is where Starmer's safety-first approach is absolutely at odds with a younger electorate that wants genuine change and genuine acknowledgement that things are properly, properly fucked, not some clever bit of political manouevering that promises little real change.
None of the options on the table are appealing to anyone who wants real change. Not being a genuine shitshow of a corrupt corpse of the Tory party is not enough to engage people like that.
... or else when you do vote, it'll be for a disgustingly mendacious individual like the blonde cunt, or the Orange traitor, who tells you everything is easy, & you can have everything you want & pay nothing.
Democracy is about compromises, & changing course if find you've been lied to, or the explanations, on why things aren't happening aren't credible, but all of this requires paying attention in between GEs, & most people turn off Politics except for a few days a year
Okay so which party should the left leaning younger electorate with a healthy distrust of late stage capitalism and its stranglehold on our political system join that would make the slightest bit of differenceRhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 10:38 pmSo join a party, vote for the candidates you want, but if you give up and abstain you are just a stain.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:50 pmIt's not about a perfect candidate. Lecturing people that they don't have a right to complain if they don't vote while in the same breath telling them it doesn't matter who they vote for, with a system that essentially wastes the vote of huge numbers of people, and a party system that has long been divorced from reality, with the most likely winners offering very little genuine hope for the future... What do you think that achieves?fishfoodie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:40 pm
If you don't vote until there's the perfect candidate; you'll never vote !
... or else when you do vote, it'll be for a disgustingly mendacious individual like the blonde cunt, or the Orange traitor, who tells you everything is easy, & you can have everything you want & pay nothing.
Democracy is about compromises, & changing course if find you've been lied to, or the explanations, on why things aren't happening aren't credible, but all of this requires paying attention in between GEs, & most people turn off Politics except for a few days a year
And if you don't get what you want tough, try again, and again, or quit and be a stain. It's quite possible you'll never get what you want, and that's just how it is, and reasonably why should you get what you want in a country with tens of millions of other voters, but it's better if more of us try to muddle to an answer that better reflects more of us
Great post JMK.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 11:00 pm Like it's the first generation in a long time to be significantly worse off than their predecessors. Owning a home is a pipe dream. They work more and earn less. The job market is a nightmare and corporations are psychotic and given free rein by governments. Freedom of movement has been taken away from them. Austerity has kicked the shit out of them. The climate crisis is still not being taken seriously by a country sleepwalking into disaster. Those that did get involved in politics probably suffered the loss to Boris fucking Johnson, and the stark lesson that nothing matters and consequences are for the little people. And the only party with any power who might possibly represent them is falling over itself to appease anyone but them, is too scared to even mention Brexit, is significantly to the right on certain issues, and has offered virtually nothing aspirational in its grim catennacio approach to squeezing out the Tories at the expense of providing any real hope.
What I'm saying is there's no surprise they're leaning more towards activism than politics, which is a system that doesn't work for them. At least activism has a chance of tangible gains.
Frankly I'm amazed people can't understand why younger generations refusing to engage in a system that actively works against them and what they believe in is a legitimate choice, and in some cases a deeply moral one. You can disagree with the choice, but let's not pretend that (for example) voting for labour is going to make labour change course any more than not voting for them would.
They delivered on their manifesto make everything worse slower than Labour would have and it resulted in more extremism, yes. That is what happens when you run on an overtly negative program telling people things can't get better. They don't get better, and people just get angry.
Cameron and Osbourne spent a long time telling everyone Brexit would make the UK worse though. So they did put in their manifesto something that they believed would make things worse.lemonhead wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 7:54 am Ok, again: they promised in their manifesto all the things we now acknowledge have made the UK significantly worse.
The subjective 'we'll run the country into the ground slower' is not one I recall at the time, nor can I find any reference to it now. Lord Bless em, they even seemed to believe it would do the opposite.
Before running away, very fast.
This is also (one of) the reasons that I can’t understand why people are surprised that Reform seem to have a following among very young voters, just as the AfD and whatever Le Pen’s lot are called now do as well.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 11:00 pm Like it's the first generation in a long time to be significantly worse off than their predecessors. Owning a home is a pipe dream. They work more and earn less. The job market is a nightmare and corporations are psychotic and given free rein by governments. Freedom of movement has been taken away from them. Austerity has kicked the shit out of them. The climate crisis is still not being taken seriously by a country sleepwalking into disaster. Those that did get involved in politics probably suffered the loss to Boris fucking Johnson, and the stark lesson that nothing matters and consequences are for the little people. And the only party with any power who might possibly represent them is falling over itself to appease anyone but them, is too scared to even mention Brexit, is significantly to the right on certain issues, and has offered virtually nothing aspirational in its grim catennacio approach to squeezing out the Tories at the expense of providing any real hope.
What I'm saying is there's no surprise they're leaning more towards activism than politics, which is a system that doesn't work for them. At least activism has a chance of tangible gains.
Frankly I'm amazed people can't understand why younger generations refusing to engage in a system that actively works against them and what they believe in is a legitimate choice, and in some cases a deeply moral one. You can disagree with the choice, but let's not pretend that (for example) voting for labour is going to make labour change course any more than not voting for them would.
This is much betterJM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 11:00 pm Like it's the first generation in a long time to be significantly worse off than their predecessors. Owning a home is a pipe dream. They work more and earn less. The job market is a nightmare and corporations are psychotic and given free rein by governments. Freedom of movement has been taken away from them. Austerity has kicked the shit out of them. The climate crisis is still not being taken seriously by a country sleepwalking into disaster. Those that did get involved in politics probably suffered the loss to Boris fucking Johnson, and the stark lesson that nothing matters and consequences are for the little people. And the only party with any power who might possibly represent them is falling over itself to appease anyone but them, is too scared to even mention Brexit, is significantly to the right on certain issues, and has offered virtually nothing aspirational in its grim catennacio approach to squeezing out the Tories at the expense of providing any real hope.
What I'm saying is there's no surprise they're leaning more towards activism than politics, which is a system that doesn't work for them. At least activism has a chance of tangible gains.
Frankly I'm amazed people can't understand why younger generations refusing to engage in a system that actively works against them and what they believe in is a legitimate choice, and in some cases a deeply moral one. You can disagree with the choice, but let's not pretend that (for example) voting for labour is going to make labour change course any more than not voting for them would.
If you believe the game is fundamentally rigged against you, and you feel that your vote is a sign you support the person or party you are voting for, and that person or party not only does not represent you but represents a continuation of a failed system and - crucially - is diametrically opposed on key issues you have a strong moral line on, then not voting is a clear and sensible choice.lemonhead wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 8:06 am Mate, I'm not really clear on what you're saying anymore.
The point under discussion is whether one should abstain from voting in a severely flawed system. I'd argue you shouldn't, as many of society's current ills that are causing real misery were in fact something we had the opportunity to vote a party into power promising those very ills. Whatever shit stained icing they dolloped on top isn't relevant. They offered it, enough of us said yes.
You stop voting, you are letting those who do vote and who they vote for to make things even worse.
Equally, however, you can't pretend that the major parties will actually give a fuck about them not voting.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:32 amIf you believe the game is fundamentally rigged against you, and you feel that your vote is a sign you support the person or party you are voting for, and that person or party not only does not represent you but represents a continuation of a failed system and - crucially - is diametrically opposed on key issues you have a strong moral line on, then not voting is a clear and sensible choice.lemonhead wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 8:06 am Mate, I'm not really clear on what you're saying anymore.
The point under discussion is whether one should abstain from voting in a severely flawed system. I'd argue you shouldn't, as many of society's current ills that are causing real misery were in fact something we had the opportunity to vote a party into power promising those very ills. Whatever shit stained icing they dolloped on top isn't relevant. They offered it, enough of us said yes.
You stop voting, you are letting those who do vote and who they vote for to make things even worse.
Or to put it another way, it's a generation that has been completely screwed over by those that came before them, continues to be screwed over, and the only party in the system that should be falling over themselves to woo them is instead focusing all its efforts on the wooing the generations that the system has already benefited to the near exclusion of everyone else.
You cannot tell people they need to vote to have a say, if voting does not give them a say unless they vote for one of the two big parties, and if those parties are uninterested in policies that align with those voters. Anyone who wants labour to be far more than what they are now will not be making labour change course by voting for them, because voting for them is seen as a sign that they are giving labour a mandate for their platform and policies. This is doubly true in the current scenario where it seems likely that every zoomer could abstain and labour would win by a wide margin anyway.
You want Gen Z to vote and care about voting? Then don't disenfranchise them. Don't give them parties who represent at best a Milquetoast improvement on what's gone before, parties with no apparent interest in investing in them, parties that refuse to acknowledge the realities of how fucked things are and the causes of that fuckery. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, they suffer the consequences more than any other generation, and it's the generations that caused these problems that our political system is hell-bent on enriching and supporting. What a choice we've given them, eh?
Surely you mean the Gavin Henson option?tabascoboy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:52 am Wish the ballot papers had a "None of the Above" option. That would remove a major excuse for not voting.
You can spoil the ballot paper.tabascoboy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:52 am Wish the ballot papers had a "None of the Above" option. That would remove a major excuse for not voting.
So long as you're not voting against them, they won't care.I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 12:10 pmYou can spoil the ballot paper.tabascoboy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:52 am Wish the ballot papers had a "None of the Above" option. That would remove a major excuse for not voting.
Your point in that discussion was it's smart to vote for the least worst party and nobody says we'll make things worse slower than that guy. The last example of voting for the least worst options and parties saying we'll make things worse slower has been a complete disaster. And so is not a smart thing to do at all.lemonhead wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 8:06 am Mate, I'm not really clear on what you're saying anymore.
The point under discussion is whether one should abstain from voting in a severely flawed system. I'd argue you shouldn't, as many of society's current ills that are causing real misery were in fact something we had the opportunity to vote a party into power promising those very ills. Whatever shit stained icing they dolloped on top isn't relevant. They offered it, enough of us said yes.
You stop voting, you are letting those who do vote and who they vote for to make things even worse.
Of course, but you don't differentiate then between people who just neglected to complete it properly and a protest vote. "None of the Above" is unequivocal statement, and IMO would be a sine qua non for mandatory voting.I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 12:10 pmYou can spoil the ballot paper.tabascoboy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:52 am Wish the ballot papers had a "None of the Above" option. That would remove a major excuse for not voting.
No. I know exactly what my point is, cheers. I've also taken the time to explain it.I like neeps wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 12:11 pmYour point in that discussion was it's smart to vote for the least worst party and nobody says we'll make things worse slower than that guy. The last example of voting for the least worst options and parties saying we'll make things worse slower has been a complete disaster. And so is not a smart thing to do at all.lemonhead wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 8:06 am Mate, I'm not really clear on what you're saying anymore.
The point under discussion is whether one should abstain from voting in a severely flawed system. I'd argue you shouldn't, as many of society's current ills that are causing real misery were in fact something we had the opportunity to vote a party into power promising those very ills. Whatever shit stained icing they dolloped on top isn't relevant. They offered it, enough of us said yes.
You stop voting, you are letting those who do vote and who they vote for to make things even worse.
Okay. Tell me how they effectively make themselves heard at the ballot box. A generation of people that parties avoid, ignore, and actively work against. Because "voting for labour" isn't it, and apparently not voting isn't it, and there is no genuine alternative.Biffer wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:55 amEqually, however, you can't pretend that the major parties will actually give a fuck about them not voting.JM2K6 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 11:32 amIf you believe the game is fundamentally rigged against you, and you feel that your vote is a sign you support the person or party you are voting for, and that person or party not only does not represent you but represents a continuation of a failed system and - crucially - is diametrically opposed on key issues you have a strong moral line on, then not voting is a clear and sensible choice.lemonhead wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 8:06 am Mate, I'm not really clear on what you're saying anymore.
The point under discussion is whether one should abstain from voting in a severely flawed system. I'd argue you shouldn't, as many of society's current ills that are causing real misery were in fact something we had the opportunity to vote a party into power promising those very ills. Whatever shit stained icing they dolloped on top isn't relevant. They offered it, enough of us said yes.
You stop voting, you are letting those who do vote and who they vote for to make things even worse.
Or to put it another way, it's a generation that has been completely screwed over by those that came before them, continues to be screwed over, and the only party in the system that should be falling over themselves to woo them is instead focusing all its efforts on the wooing the generations that the system has already benefited to the near exclusion of everyone else.
You cannot tell people they need to vote to have a say, if voting does not give them a say unless they vote for one of the two big parties, and if those parties are uninterested in policies that align with those voters. Anyone who wants labour to be far more than what they are now will not be making labour change course by voting for them, because voting for them is seen as a sign that they are giving labour a mandate for their platform and policies. This is doubly true in the current scenario where it seems likely that every zoomer could abstain and labour would win by a wide margin anyway.
You want Gen Z to vote and care about voting? Then don't disenfranchise them. Don't give them parties who represent at best a Milquetoast improvement on what's gone before, parties with no apparent interest in investing in them, parties that refuse to acknowledge the realities of how fucked things are and the causes of that fuckery. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, they suffer the consequences more than any other generation, and it's the generations that caused these problems that our political system is hell-bent on enriching and supporting. What a choice we've given them, eh?
If there isn't a party that represents you, it's not up to anyone else to meet your needs - you need to make yourself heard, and heard at the ballot box.