like any columnist (for that is what he is really) he has good days and bad days. On the no voting thing I think he was a bit misunderstood. He was saying the current crop of self-interested shag-sacks do not deserve the validation that a vote directly implies. He was saying that there are other ways to engage politically, and that one of them should be campaigning for genuine political reform. He was promoting benign civil disobedience rather than apathy. Actually he was sputing a lot of rubbish, but being generous to him i think this was what he was trying to get at. I'm not entirely against the idea, either you engage those that feel disenfranchised with a workable alternative that they *will* vote for or you attack the system that entrenches power in vested interests. UKIP very successful at the former, even if they're tilting at the wrong windmills, blame the EU for he ravages of globalism on one of the few bodies working to protect the little people from it, whilst championing the usual suspects that are at the root of it all, deregulation, privatisation, end to workers rights, minimum wage and so on.