[Closed] Nearly 40 and never voted.

re others as unconcerned as me to what colour tie the governing party wear ?

Yeah it's all down to that.

have only voted once when i was 18. haven't voted since (39 now).i just cannot bring myself to vote for any of them.

The way I see it, and I'm not terribly politically motivated in general, there are a couple of good reasons to vote.

1. It's my voice. If I don't vote I have NO right to complain about anything; I'm essentially giving away any input I have into the running of the country, thus making a mockery of the democracy that we really, really shouldn't take for granted.

2. It makes a difference. Voting figures are low; in lower margin examples, it doesn't take *that* many votes to sway it.

3. I'd rather have one of the middle of the road parties (LibLabCon) than UKIP. By a long way. If everyone who thought like you ("they're all as bad as each other") didn't bother voting, the right wing parties would be much closer to power. So vote for the lesser of a number of evils. (I'll probably vote Green, 'cos I'm a tree hugging hippy and they usually do quite well here).

Compulsary in Australia otherwise a $55.00 fine. ouch.

I'm 38, and have voted in every election I could. But, because I have always lived in either a conservative or Labour strong hold and have never voted for either of them the current voting system means my votes have never meant a thing.

I'm very bored with it now and will struggle to vote at the next general elections!

@marcus - why don't you visit a war cemetery and take a look at all the people who are buried there. They died protecting your right to vote.

I do postal votes as it means I vote in every election be it local, European or general.

I have voted and i'm 43... i must be confused.. 🙂

All politicians are cheating, self serving short termist scum.

However, and this year is a good year to remember the fact, millions of our forebears gave their lives to ensure that we can enjoy the right to vote for whichever of the cheating self serving short termist scum we feel is the lesser of the evils.

I'm in favour of making voting compulsory, provided there was a "none of the above" option.

@jambalaya - I think they fought for the right to choose, not the right to vote - so his choice to do whatever he wants to do with his vote.

Our elected leaders act like gilded princlings because they know a lot of people don't vote. So they're not being held to democratic account as they should be.

So they're faced with 2 interest groups

1. The electorate. But they don't vote in large numbers, so * 'em!
2. Big business. Who rabidly and relentlessly promote their interests by any means possible. Endlesly lobbying them to change laws/regulations in their favour, offer them well paid directorships, and treat them to glamorous 'research trips' and big slap up feeds at the Ritz

So we've ended up with the completely unrepresentative mess we have because instead of hoofing them out of power, people shrug, tut, and don't bother voting. Thus, they go on the self-interested with business as usual.

So…. to summarise. You see this…..

[img] [/img]

Well its all your *ing fault! About 30% of the population voted for these ****s! And just look at the way they're carrying on! Like its their own personal fiefdom!

Its not a 'hatred' for our politicians, which stops me voting. - I don't any of them are THAT bad compared to those in other countries.
I think its because I have seen and would expect very little change in much, regardless of who is in power. (Yeah there would be some tinkering around the edges, but BIG changes ??) I don't really complain about much - I would rather use my time to look for the positives in situations ??
And yes, I'm aware people were sent to war to die to protect a political system.
Maybe, I'm just far too superficial ?

My problem is that I see Cameron and I want to slap him, I see Clegg and have the same violent reaction, then I see Milliband and I want to shake him, then slap him, don't get me started on UKIP...who do i vote for??

But, because I have always lived in either a conservative or Labour strong hold and have never voted for either of them the current voting system means my votes have never meant a thing.

You don't have to back the winner for your vote to count and a vote isn't wasted even in a stronghold where a change of political colour is unlikely. The committee your constituency elects (a 'committee' as in person entrusted with the charge of another person or another person's property or interests) represents, and works for and on behalf of all of you, not just they ones who ticked their box. (and they're paid by all of you too). Its important for it to be known exactly what mandate they have.

All politicians are cheating, self serving short termist scum.

Our apathy puts them there.

Yeah there would be some tinkering around the edges, but BIG changes ??

You need to get out more. If everything is fine and dandy for you then good for you. If you're not aware of BIG changes happening right, right, now then you're just the kind of voter our current government dream of. The people i know with mental and physical disabilities are having their lives royally xxxxed, the young carers who have sacrificed their childhood to care for their parents - having their lives royally xxxxed. And the people who do know, and do care, and do everything in their power to try and soften these blows - their lives and work royally xxxxed. Proper fear, proper harm, proper despair. And we should all be properly angry that a minority government is doing it in all our names - yours included.

It is indeed a shame folk feel like this and without winding the lefty boys up with more UKIP rhetoric it's precisely why they're growing.

I'd go the green route, as somebody said back there a lot of people died keeping the option to vote available to you and the greens generally have our best interests at heart even if they're not very good at broadcasting the fact.

binners - Member
So they're faced with 2 interest groups

1. The electorate. But they don't vote in large numbers, so **** 'em!
2. Big business. Who rabidly and relentlessly promote their interests by any means possible....

....So we've ended up with the completely unrepresentative mess we have because instead of hoofing them out of power, people shrug, tut, and don't bother voting.

So whose fault is that.

With the European elections dont we have the charade of ranking all the candidates. I upset the teller last time by asking if I could rank then alphabetically. Its bad enough chosing one, let alone ranking a whole bunch of them - need a new collective known for MEP candidates....a bureaucracy, a gravy train, a confusion....?

What do the war dead have to do with the right to vote? They didn't willingly die for some notion of democracy, they were conscripted sacrifices for the greater gains of the political class that controlled them.

I've voted in most elections over the last thirty years. The more I see of the political process, the more I'm convinced that the only solution involves certain heads being skewered on poles.

it's a classically difficult question, as it invokes historic and historical context and then tries to continue to apply it to every opportunity to vote.

If we accept the principle of general emancipation, then we need to accept a sort of Sartre influenced right to choose not to vote as part of that wider freedom.

As it is, I've reconciled that by casting a spoiled ballot paper where, for example, I have an objection to all of the candidates or dislike the election process for that campaign. I take part in the wider voting process, and form a view on the merits of each election without resorting to the rather childish suggestion that all politicians are self-serving, corrupt or short termist.

Mac _ You're right, I'm probably not as 'current affair savvy' as I should be. But would a government from a different political party channel money and expense into the sort of minorities you cite at the expense of the middle ground ? I honestly don't know, but would be surprised if they did.

need a new collective known for MEP candidates....a bureaucracy, a gravy train, a confusion....?

This list deals with MPs rather than MEPs but perhaps you can add you suggestions

[url= http://all-sorts.org/nouns/mps ]Someone helpfully suggested the collective noun 'group'[/url]

I think they fought for the right to choose, not the right to vote - so his choice to do whatever he wants to do with his vote.

You're right, I'm probably not as 'current affair savvy' as I should be

its not a current affairs thing - go out of the house and meet people.

But would a government from a different political party channel money and expense into the sort of minorities you cite at the expense of the middle ground ?

With the European elections dont we have the charade of ranking all the candidates. I upset the teller last time by asking if I could rank then alphabetically.

Isn't that the Alternative Vote? 😉

If I don't vote I have NO right to complain about anything; I'm essentially giving away any input I have into the running of the country, thus making a mockery of the democracy that we really, really shouldn't take for granted.

as somebody said back there a lot of people died keeping the option to vote available to you

What do the war dead have to do with the right to vote? They didn't willingly die for some notion of democracy, they were conscripted sacrifices for the greater gains of the political class that controlled them

A lot of them were volunteers, not conscripts.

I always vote in the local elections here in Spain, although I'm not allowed to vote in the national elections. And because I haven't lived in the UK for the past 15 years I don't seem to have a right to vote there, either.

this is a tired old argument as well but even so having a "none of the above" option on the ballot would enable one to exercise the right to vote whilst refusing to endorse any of the candidate

Compulsory voting with this option would be my preference.

Nice link mac!!

I've voted in every general, local and European election since I turned 18; my first was the 1997 general election.

If I couldn't bring myself to vote for any candidate, I'd spoil my paper rather than not voting. If Alan Milburn was still my MP, this would probably have happened at the next general election as I can no longer vote for the Lib Dems and we never have a Green candidate, but we now have a good, local Labour candidate who'll be getting my vote.

I think it's sad that some people don't take the time to find out what's happening and take an active part in the process. If your MP and councillor don't recognise you in the street you're not taking enough of an interest in what's going on.

What do the war dead have to do with the right to vote? They didn't willingly die for some notion of democracy, they were conscripted sacrifices for the greater gains of the political class that controlled them.

@captaincarbon - point taken.

@binners - you need to add Clegg and Cable into that picture, in fairness I think the coalition is the most representative government we've had in a long time in relation to how many people voted for the LibDems and Tories combined.

No offence but you are being taken for a mug IMO. Those in charge are giving you the illusion that you can effect change but all they are really doing is trying to prevent a reform of the entire system (which is what is really required for change).

So stand for election. Get other people to stand who agree with you. Win an election. Effect change.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0679179/

41 and never voted and never will.

I was thinking about this today, and how it seems that whoever we vote in, it's a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

I propose a weighted voting system, where each person's vote is scored 0-10 based on their understanding of the policies of the party they're voting for.

0 = no show
1 = under 25 and reasoning involves vague ramblings about Margaret Thatcher
2 = "dunno really, I guess I've just always voted for Party X"
3 = tenuous grasp of a single issue

and so on, up to

10 = clear understanding of party policy and likely changes to society that will result from them being enacted from policy into law

Entirely impossible that this might ever happen, given that anything that could encourage the majority of opinions to be formed from research rather than from tabloid ministerial sleaze exposes and smear campaigns must be heartily discouraged.

Mac - Obviously I get out of the house and talk to people and use my local services. I have seen winners and losers, regardless of which political party is in power.

Mike - or let the Whitehall charade continue, giving time to charity and looking after family and friends, etc. ??

39. Done it once.

I'd be much happier to vote if there was a "none of the above" option too.

It may not make a difference in your constituency, and you may think that it's only the tie colour that changes (and you may be right). But it DOES make a difference in the long run.

You may only be choosing between the same 3 parties, but the policies those parties adopt can be flexible, and will respond to the mood of the electorate. And by placing your vote, even if your candidate doesn't win, you are registering your position.

However I do think that 'none of the above' would be a massive help.

or let the Whitehall charade continue, giving time to charity and looking after family and friends, etc. ??

I quite like your idea TheFlyingOx but how would the scores be assigned? Would we have to sit an exam or an interview or can I score everyone at random?

I tend to agree with binners.

Don't imagine for a second that your refusal to participate in the current process is magically going to lead to a better alternative.

Your options really are (a) make the best of the current system, (b) passively accept a system in which your vote gets steadily less interesting to those who run the country or (c) take real and serious risks struggling to force the change that you want, when you've worked out what that is.

Don't imagine for a second that your refusal to participate in the current process is magically going to lead to a better alternative.

JonEdwards - Member

I'd be much happier to vote if there was a "none of the above" option too.

pretend, that the green party is more or less the same thing.

voting green almost certainly won't help them win, but, here's the great bit, every vote against 'not BNP/UKIP' means a greater chance of them losing their electoral deposit.

(if they don't get 5% of the vote, they lose their £500(?) deposit)

IF we had a "none of the above" option and then IF enough voters chose to use it then I don't think that could be ignored.

What would you expect to see happen? There isn't some sort of central procurement office designing and creating political parties that all the "none of the aboves" might like.

Whatever government there was would take its wafer thin mandate, make sure its riot police had plenty of water cannons and carry on as normal.

No, but IF we had a "none of the above" option and then IF enough voters chose to use it then I don't think that could be ignored.

What would you expect to see happen? There isn't some sort of central procurement office designing and creating political parties that all the "none of the aboves" might like.

...in fairness I think the coalition is the most representative government we've had in a long time in relation to how many people voted for the LibDems and Tories combined.

Speaking of which, just trying to find an article published fairly recently about what the LibDems have acheived. It's a surprising amount - enough to royally piss-off the Tories anyway. From that point of view I think the above statement has merit.

In the meantime: http://www.whatthehellhavethelibdemsdone.com

I quite like your idea TheFlyingOx but how would the scores be assigned? Would we have to sit an exam or an interview or can I score everyone at random?

Dear god, some of these replies make for depressing reading.

Is it any wonder we've ended up with the unholy unrepresentative mess we've got? Which then turns people away from it even further as they take less account of public opinion. And why should they? If it'll make bugger all difference as they won't vote anyway. so why even consider them, eh?

Unless some people wake up and start seeing that democracy requires some engagement, and is really a civil obligation, then the corporate takeover of national government will continue unchecked

Heres an idea. Instead of thinking about how government policy effects you, why not look at it from the point of view of the least fortunate members of society? The poor, the disabled, the unemployed, and ask yourself how government policy is effecting them? Then look at the other end of the spectrum, at the super-rich, and ask how the same policies are effecting them? Did you notice the announcement that they're doubling the already substantial taxpayer subsidy for grouse moors this week? At the same time as they say that the unemployed will have to do 'voluntary' work from now on?

Maybe we need a northern based, pasty, pie and brown beer fuelled revolution. Cummon sort it out comrade

It was my Grandad who told me that even if I did not actually vote for anyone I should at least go and spoil my paper.

There are countless people dying around the world fighting for the right to vote and all we do is sit at home and moan about how we can't be arsed voting for any of them.

The other issue (as Doncaster found out to their cost in the Mayoral vote) is that low turn-outs favour the fringe parties / lunatics getting a foot in the door.

Get out there and vote or at least practice your democratic right to spoil your paper.

This conversation had a familair ring to it. Here's one of my posts from about 3 years ago. Still feel the same way

Not voting is the affront to democracy. It should be compulsory to vote. Enough people die around the world trying to get the right and a lot of people cant be @rsed.
However if it was compulsory then it should be easy and accessible to do so for everyone and there always should be 'I am not voting for any of them' choice on the paper.

I think a lot of the politicians would change their attitude if they got 100% turnout and only 40% bothered to choose someone. I think they would be scrambling around for that missed market share

Don't imagine for a second that your refusal to participate in the current process is magically going to lead to a better alternative.

So serious question. - How do go about getting the issue of a 'none of the above' box discussed at 'higher levels' ?

[i]All politicians are cheating, self serving short termist scum.[/i]

I'd add the words 'lying' & 'untrustworthy' to that statement.

FWIW, UKIP did ok round these parts last time & on listening to people at work they'll probably do even better next time. 😐

Difficult one I admit. Given the nature of politicians I doubt they could bring themselves to consider that someone could turn up to vote and yet not vote for any of them. It would be too powerful a statement.
I guess there's few more options these days given the prominence of social media.

As for going about it, I guess I am fine at the moment since I do have the best of a bad bunch to vote for at the moment. Otherwise I would be inclined to do something.

never voted but spent 15 years working the polling stations and vote counting in a previous existence.

It was my Grandad who told me that even if I did not actually vote for anyone I should at least go and spoil my paper.

Which achieves exactly nothing. Apart from wasting your own time. And that of the poor underapid person who sorts the votes.

The Sheaf View pub is very close to my polling station in Sheffield.
I vote in the evening and celebrate my franchise with a pint. Who wouldn't?
I felt tempted to spoil my ballot paper for the police commissioner poll.

People voting Lib Dem or Green have influenced the policies of Labour and the Tories to an extent. That was how I always viewed my vote in a relatively safe Labour seat; voting LD was my way of saying "I think tuition fees and ID cards and bombing the shit out of Iraq isn't great".

Unfortunately, as we're seeing, the rise of UKIP and the (soon-to-be) death of the LibDems is pushing Con/Lab further right.

So serious question. - How do go about getting the issue of a 'none of the above' box discussed at 'higher levels' ?

You could (in no particular order):

- write to your MP and say you think this is important
- show up at your MP's constituency surgeries and talk to them about it
- use the online petition thingy to try to get enough signatures to trigger a debate on it (it's probably been done already, by people unfamiliar with the very concept of grammar, but anyway)
- put an actual petition together amongst people you know, and present it to your MP
- find out whether any political party has the introduction of a "none of the above" option as policy, then join them. If they are active locally, help. If they are not, see whether you can organise for them in your area.
- if no such party proves to exist, or if none are active locally, join a party that is active locally and otherwise appeals. Do the work involved in getting this measure onto the policy agenda, or support others who are engaged in doing it.

I appreciate that much of this sounds like hard work. But if you really think that a change to the electoral system so that you can formally express your apathy by turning up at a school hall is something that is high on the agenda of those currently engaged in actually running the country you'd be mistaken. 😉

never voted but spent 15 years working the polling stations and vote counting in a previous existence.

It was my Grandad who told me that even if I did not actually vote for anyone I should at least go and spoil my paper.

Which achieves exactly nothing. Apart from wasting your own time. And that of the poor underapid person who sorts the votes.

Spoilt ballots are counted, and (I believe) have to be shown to the candidates/agents to confirm they're spoilt.

A national "spoil your ballot" campaign (I bet Russell Brand would front it) would/could send a message.

Apparently, most of the people saying they'll vote UKIP in the Euro elections will be first time voters. I'm really hoping that they'll not bother dragging themselves to the polling station.

Difficult one I admit. Given the nature of politicians I doubt they could bring themselves to consider that someone could turn up to vote and yet not vote for any of them. It would be too powerful a statement.
I guess there's few more options these days given the prominence of social media.

The statement is already there to some extent. 60% of people don't bother to vote already (and a larger percentage in things like the European elections).

The problem with none of the above is its a negative assertion - someone has to win to govern.

(I very nearly wrote "I'm really hoping that they'll not bother dragging [s]themselves[/s] [i]their knuckles[/i] to the polling station." but didn't. I think I'm growing up.)

The constituency I lived in had been solid labour since the beginning of time. When Blair bombed Iraq it did not go down well with the large Muslim population and the larger, and vocal constituency of right-on lefties. At the next election it went LibDem with an 18% swing

Saying Democracy doesn't work is just cobblers. It would work a lot better than it is at present if people weren't so bloody lazy and apathetic

There are countless people dying around the world fighting for the right to vote and all we do is sit at home and moan about how we can't be arsed voting for any of them.

This. +1

You could (in no particular order):

- write to your MP and say you think this is important
- show up at your MP's constituency surgeries and talk to them about it
- use the online petition thingy to try to get enough signatures to trigger a debate on it (it's probably been done already, by people unfamiliar with the very concept of grammar, but anyway)
- put an actual petition together amongst people you know, and present it to your MP
- find out whether any political party has the introduction of a "none of the above" option as policy, then join them. If they are active locally, help. If they are not, see whether you can organise for them in your area.
- if no such party proves to exist, or if none are active locally, join a party that is active locally and otherwise appeals. Do the work involved in getting this measure onto the policy agenda, or support others who are engaged in doing it.

I appreciate that much of this sounds like hard work. But if you really think that a change to the electoral system so that you can formally express your apathy by turning up at a school hall is something that is high on the agenda of those currently engaged in actually running the country you'd be mistaken.

Interestingly my previous MP was an up and coming front bench Tory. I took great delight in (politely) writing to him, as I'm sure his PA took great delight in replying with wordy, meaningless emails. Never actually met him, but I think that's because he was too busy climbing the greasy pole to hold surgeries.

Current MP, despite being a Tory, is far more approachable if a little less ambitious. I contacted him about a cycling issue, and after replying to his response stating that it was essentially meaningless, I actually got an honest letter which gave a straight forward answer with reasons behind it. I disagreed, but very much appreciate the response.

Right I'm convinced again. I'll carry on voting, god knows who for though as I doubt we have a green party rep round here!!

After hearing too many conversation like "Dad, which one should I vote for" it did depress me to be a polling officer 🙄

Faith was normally restored by some infirm old gent or lady hobbling down the street probably for the first time in days just to use their vote.

Firstly, UkIP may win quite big at the Euro elections, but they will get their asses handed to them on a plate next year at the national elections, just like in 2010. They have been around 20years and got pretty much nowhere.

Aside from being a single issue party, it demonstrates how difficult its going to be for any political party other than the three main parties to make an attempt to win the UK election.

This is because regardless of whether people trust Cons/Libs/Labs or not, they have form in political office. The problem with this is, the three parties "stage manage" who will become candidates for election as MP's, and considering that the top echelons of all three parties pretty much come from the same social group/educational backgrounds, you can pretty much bet if they can't find suitable local candidate for election, they will parachute one in.

So other than a major economic disaster, there ain't going to be some new political party who will right all these wrongs riding to our rescue.

The change has to happen with these three parties, and we have to force them to change from within, protest votes at the EU elections won't do that.

there ain't going to be some new political party who will right all these wrongs riding to our rescue.

That is not necessarily true. The Labour party had almost no experience of national government when it first took power.

A party capable of fielding a mix of candidates with experience in local government, experience organising other things (unions, hospitals, housing associations, banks, a ship, whatever) and knowledge and understanding of matters of interest (economics, law, healthcare, finance, commerce, oil prospecting, warfare, whatever) ought to be able to cope credibly with campaigning.

UKIP is failing to give a credible account of itself in substantial part because everything about it is fantasy. The repudiated 2010 manifesto was gibberish by any possible standards - that has not mattered to a base with no political convictions other than the importance of not voting for a functional governing party. But there is no particular reason why the political programme of a genuinely broadly-based new political movement should not be coherent and capable of implementation.

That is not necessarily true. The Labour party had almost no experience of national government when it first took power.

But it still had to rely on an established party, the Liberals to do that, and all at a time when more people were being allowed to vote.

Labour weren't a one trick protest vote pony, thats the difference.

What you want to be very scared of the UKIP voters in this European parliament going back to Conservatives come the general election.

Or worse, people who would never vote Cons because of past history but actually 'believing' the UKIP spin and feeling comfortable voting UKIP. I know a lot of Labour voters who don't stand for anything near what the party represents, but would never vote Con 'because of Thatcher' or whatever. Could be some scary swings come polling day.

ohnohesback - Member
What do the war dead have to do with the right to vote? They didn't willingly die for some notion of democracy, they were conscripted sacrifices for the greater gains of the political class that controlled them.

A lot of them volunteered, to protect our right to self governance, had they not we'd have been Governed by a German dominated administration of officials we'd have had no say in electing...... Er a bit like the EU has become 😕

jambalaya - Member
... why don't you visit a war cemetery and take a look at all the people who are buried there. They died protecting your right to vote.

BigDummy - Member
I tend to agree with binners.

Don't imagine for a second that your refusal to participate in the current process is magically going to lead to a better alternative

The evidence points to the opposite.

Every election since the War has produced a majority government from a minority vote, every government we've had has had more people opposed to it than for it.
The baton has been passed regularly between the two old rivals, but none has ever been voted in by a majority of the voters.

Until the last election, where we had the highest proportion so far of non-voting, yet we've ended up with our most representative government - with the number of seats for each of the 3 parties closest ever to their actual share of the vote. Hence the coalition.

Conservatives will tell you you're wrong not to vote. Labour supporters will tell you you're wrong not to vote. The system works for them.
But it's non-voting that's produced the most significant result we've had, and the most representative government.

Every election since the War has produced a majority government from a minority vote

Er, except the current one.....regardless what you think of coalitions this one does ( or at least did at the point of the election) have a majority mandate from the electorate. If you use the argument that the when you include all the voters whether they voted or not they still did not have a majority then you have just possibly answered the question "why should. I bother to vote?"

In a democracy you need to either vote for the candidate or party that's is closest to your views or if you don't want to do that you need to get off yer backside, state what you believe in and and stand for election. Failing that you need to shut up and stop moaning 🙂

Every election since the War has produced a majority government from a minority vote... [u][b]Until the last election[/b][/u]

Did you even read the second paragraph before barking up the wrong tree.

marcus - Member
So serious question. - How do go about getting the issue of a 'none of the above' box discussed at 'higher levels' ?

As has been said above, the 'higher levels' wouldn't entertain it as it robs them of their well funded comfortable gravy train.

Social media, start with the populous, there's more of us than the politico's and try as they might, they can't control the internet completely. How about a Face-ache page? It's one of the possibilities I've been considering for the next general election, even if it starts with a spoil your ballot move.

Has to be said though, that any replacement system will still be occupied by those who seek to serve themselves first.

The evidence points to the opposite.

This is a rather odd argument. Seats by party as a proportion of [u]national[/u] share of vote does not depend on turnout. It depends much more on geographical dispersal of those votes by constituency.

In any case, if you start claiming that the fewer the people voting the better represented everyone is you're more-or-less conceding that the Great Reform Act of 1832 was the first in a terrible series of mistaken constitutional amendments which should be put right so that we can get truly representative democracy back...

A lot of them volunteered, to protect our right to self governance, had they not we'd have been Governed by a German dominated administration of officials we'd have had no say in electing...... Er a bit like the EU has become

Which is pretty much the same argument as this thread - either you engage in the politics, or you'll get a result you don't like. If the UK actually decided to get involved in the EU it could be just as important as Germany, or even more.

I have voted at every election I have been able to and will continue to do so. As said before, if you don't vote then it's a bit rich to spout off about anything political as it's partly your fault.

If you don't like any party then do some research and find a local candidate for whoever that interests you.

If all else fails, turn up to vote and spoil your paper. If you can't be bothered to even do that then...........