It’s election time again!

[JARC1]

I feel that not voting therefore gives that person no right to comment on political matters, or have political views.

[Roy124]

@Corolly Poly remember,  by definition,  MPs cannot lie.

Terminological inexactitude is a phrase introduced in 1906 by British politician Winston Churchill. It is used as a euphemism or circumlocution meaning a lie, an untruth, or a substantially correct but technically inaccurate statement.

Churchill first used the phrase following the 1906 election. Speaking in the House of Commons on 22 February 1906 as Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office, he had occasion to repeat what he had said during the campaign. When asked that day whether the Government was condoning slavery of Chinese labourers in the Transvaal, Churchill replied:^[1]

The conditions of the Transvaal ordinance ... cannot in the opinion of His Majesty's Government be classified as slavery; at least, that word in its full sense could not be applied without a risk of terminological inexactitude.^[1][2]

It has been used as a euphemism for a lie in the House of Commons, as to accuse another member of lying would be considered unparliamentary.

In more recent times, the term was used by Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg to the Leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn over an accusation that Rees-Mogg's company had moved a hedge fund into the Eurozone despite his being in favour of Brexit.^[3][4][5]

[Roy124]

Then there is also:

To be economical with the truth literally means to avoid revealing too much of the truth. While the idea may have an approbatory sense of prudence or diplomacy, the phrase is often either used euphemistically to denote dissimulation (misleading by withholding pertinent information) or else used ironically to mean outright lying. The term parsimonious with the truth is also sometimes used in the same way.^[1]

^{Edmund Burke 1795}

[Roy124]

3 minutes ago, JARC1 said:

I feel that not voting therefore gives that person no right to comment on political matters, or have political views.

Oft quoted but arguably inaccurate. 

If, given but a limited number of choices with which one does not agree, how, in all consciousness,  could they be said to abrogate their right to a view should they decline to vote for any?

[Cyker]

I get the sentiment - There's a lot of that in London where people are complaining about the ULEZ but when asked who they voted for, turns out they didn't vote at all, which is how KHAAAAN! got back in so predictably.

But when your voting choice was between, say, Hitler and Satan I think not voting would not remove your ability to have a political view!

I do think, when a party wins with less than 50% of votes from the *whole* population, as opposed to just the people who voted, they shouldn't be able to claim that they have the consent of the people to do as they wish, and should have less power accordingly.

When you consider how many people voted for the winning candidate/party, it's historically been less than 30% of the total population of the country or group eligible to vote...

And all the political parties seem absolutely fine with this - I haven't seen any of them make anything more than a token effort to encourage more people to vote in the decades I've been alive, probably so it doesn't change the status quo...!

 

[Haliotis]

20 hours ago, JARC1 said:

I feel that not voting therefore gives that person no right to comment on political matters, or have political views.

That is an opinion that I have also held.  But, when you are faced with morally feeling you must move to vote for a different party, and then hold that this will help to return a party you definitely don’t support, where do you go from there?

I cannot vote for what would normally be my preferred party, when I see how bad it has become and people with views similar to myself are abandoning it in droves, so I am in a dilemma.  I cannot justify voting as usual, and changing my vote is aiding the party that I DON’T want returning so, John, do you not see my difficulty?   To NOT vote would actually reduce my aid towards the unwanted party.

[Roy124]

The website Election Calculus gives interesting predictions. In Clacton,  and Clacton alone, Reform has gone from zero to hero.

That is the only predicted win for Reform.   

In our new constituency it is predicted that even a pig with a blue rosette would win.  A vote against would probably change nothing except send a message.  But as @Cyker when a party wins with less than 50% of votes from the *whole* population, as opposed to just the people who voted, they shouldn't be able to claim that they have the consent of the people to do as they wish, and should have less power accordingly.

But as ever, no seat, no say.  The winning party can then spend 4 years ignoring 70% of the population and then the last few years convincing nurseries and theme parks trying to show they are human and care - and failing dismally at both.

[Benzowner]