NotApathetic is closed to new submissions. The site is available as an archive for you to browse. Find out more...

Not Apathetic

Tell the world why you're not voting - don't let your silence go unheard

They're not voting because...

Labour lied numerous times about different...

Labour lied numerous times about different aspects about the war in Iraq (WMD, Dr Kelly) and the fact that Allistair Campbell is running the election campaign behind the scenes should say it all. Also issues about civil liberties and exaggerating the threat of terrorism. However, the Conservatives are no better and are very close to playing the racist card over immigration. Not to mention that the Tories are not the favourite party in Scotland (e.g., see Poll tax). Liberal democrats are trying to squeeze into the small gap between Lab & Tory, many voters still feel that they don't have a realistic chance of winning power. Most of their campaign seems to be negative statements about how they disagree with the big two's policies. SNP give the impression of an old man's club and seem to run the exact same campaign at every election. Greens cannot be taken seriously as they can't even decide amongst themselves if windfarms are a good thing (renewable energy source) or a bad thing (ruins the landscape). Policies not regarding the environment are not as well though out. The dearth of a trustworthy politician leaves no choice!

written 15th Apr 2005


Tom replies: I was entirely against the war and feel Blair should have gone about 18 months ago because of the complete misjudgement. BUT you say the government lied. I think that is entirely wrong. Blair believed the war was the right thing to do. That was the problem. On the assumption that lying is saying something you know to be untrue, could you name a single lie told by this government, please? If not, don't bandy the word about.

written 15th Apr 2005

Kevin Longair replies: There was the 45 minutes to possibly launch WMD at British bases in cyprus which has since been shown to be untrue - no WMD and certainly not within 45 minutes. Government blamed this on the intelligence agencies but they only added this after pressure from the goverment. Blair said that he did not authorise the release of David Kelly's name but he did give enough details so that he was outed pretty quickly afterwards. Then there was the legal advice from the attorney general which Blair claimed was detailed yet has subsequently turned out to be only a single page of A4. And I don't think that a prime minister should be acting on his own beliefs as he is supposed to be representing the views of the people.

written 15th Apr 2005

Luther Blissett replies: How about "the evidence was extensive, detailed and authoritative" when the intellignece services had advised him that it was thin and untrustworthy. Was he telling the truth or was he lieing?

In September 2002 Blair told the House of Commons that Saddams WMD programme was active, detailed and growing whereas he had been advised that the weapons programme had been frozen or hindered. Was he lieing?

What about the claim that NBC munitions could be assembled and fired aginst British troops in under 45 minutes? An untrue claim. A lie?

In so many cases his statements were at odds with reality and he used all his lawyerly arts, and the vast weight of his office, to willfully misrepresent the facts to us, to communicate to the us a vast untruth. Lies?

There's a more detailed breakdown of his lies (as I haven't the time or resources) to be found here:

One final point which is so rarely mentioned: chemical agents like Sarin and Ricin have a shelf life and those that Saddam possessed were so old that, whilst not being something you'ld want to drink, were no longer potent enough to be be used as weapons.

written 15th Apr 2005

Tom Cochrane replies: The original post said - "SNP give the impression of an old man's club and seem to run the exact same campaign at every election."

Thge impression is unfortunate. I can't see how that can be true in actuality.
The SNP have beeb regularly reaching over 30% share of the populatr vote (not relavent in a first past the post system).
The campaign will obviously remain the same.
Socially and ecponomically Scotland would be vastly better off an an independant country.
How can they change that as the basis of their campaign?

written 21st Apr 2005

About Not Apathetic

NotApathetic was built so that people who are planning not to vote in the UK General Election on May 5th can tell the world why. We won't try to persuade you that voting is a good or a bad idea - we're just here to record and share your explanations. Whether ideological, practical or other, any reason will do.

A lot of users would like us to mention that if you spoil your ballot paper, it will be counted. So if you want to record a vote for "none of the above", you can.