Snap General Election called

[Sandydragon]

Well, if one is not happy about the government they ended up with, then perhaps, one could have mustered up enough fucks on the relevant day to go out and vote.

You end up with the government you didn't vote for, and unlike those who did vote, you don't get to complain either.

Agreed. I think a lot of voters can’t find a party that completely aligns with their views so don’t bother voting. I don’t think PR would change that. The ability to compromise needs to make a comeback.

Tactical voting is a pain in the arse to be fair. But if you can’t be arsed to vote out a hugely unpopular party then you have no right to complain if it somehow remains in power.

I suspect many of the absentees this time around were lifelong Tory voters who couldn’t vote for the shambles their parties become but wouldn’t touch reform with a sterilised barge pole. I’m not so worried about that as a one off but it would be more concerning if that trend were to be repeated.

Also worth considering that the turnout was dreadful in 2001. Since the Tories were experimenting with reform like policies at that point that might again be no surprise. The stat for Tory MPs shouldn’t be the rise of reform but perhaps
More the number of Tory voters who just didn’t bother and could be tempted back.

[Banquo]

Well, if one is not happy about the government they ended up with, then perhaps, one could have mustered up enough fucks on the relevant day to go out and vote.

You end up with the government you didn't vote for, and unlike those who did vote, you don't get to complain either.

Yep

[Banquo]

Well, if one is not happy about the government they ended up with, then perhaps, one could have mustered up enough fucks on the relevant day to go out and vote.

You end up with the government you didn't vote for, and unlike those who did vote, you don't get to complain either.

Agreed. I think a lot of voters can’t find a party that completely aligns with their views so don’t bother voting. I don’t think PR would change that. The ability to compromise needs to make a comeback.

Tactical voting is a pain in the arse to be fair. But if you can’t be arsed to vote out a hugely unpopular party then you have no right to complain if it somehow remains in power.

I suspect many of the absentees this time around were lifelong Tory voters who couldn’t vote for the shambles their parties become but wouldn’t touch reform with a sterilised barge pole. I’m not so worried about that as a one off but it would be more concerning if that trend were to be repeated.

Also worth considering that the turnout was dreadful in 2001. Since the Tories were experimenting with reform like policies at that point that might again be no surprise. The stat for Tory MPs shouldn’t be the rise of reform but perhaps
More the number of Tory voters who just didn’t bother and could be tempted back.

I do think that the Labour vote was also a tad down because of tactical voting, a bit of poll complacency… and a fair bit of Green switching.

Interesting Starmer appointments- a couple of life peers created. One to accomodate Jacqui Smith who was booted out for expense fraud.

[Donny osmond]

I'm finding the vote share chat more than a little tedious, and the suggestion that it points to a lack of legitimacy is frankly crackers.

Winning 34% of the vote in a 2 horse race **might** indicate ... something. Winning 34% of the vote when there are 6 or 7 parties to choose from is a genuine result.

Everyone who voted for a party other than Conservative knew that they were contributing to a Labour win. Those Reform voters weren't voting Reform to get a Rf-Con coalition government, they knew they were contributing to a Labour win.

To ignore the multiple nuances involved in a GE and simply look at a 34% vote share as if it were only a 2 horse race, to me that's a completely illegitimate analysis

[Which Tyler]

Here here.

It was a vote under FPTP, playing by FPTP rules and giving a FPTP result - which is a huge majorly for labour.

Had it been taken under PR rules, the vote shares would have been very different.
Yes, I'd far rather have PR, even though it gives the likes of Reform a bigger voice, but this want a PR election.

Starmwr and Davey played a blinder under the rules of the system.

[Banquo]

Starmwr and Davey played a blinder under the rules of the system.

Nobody should be denying that, its self evident, terrific campaigning and coordinating/capitalising on tactical voting. Bit like Brexit . played the system rules.

[Mellsblue]

Pat McFadden is on record as saying that their campaign tactics, short and long term, were bound to lead to a result such as this if they got it right, which they clearly did. Couple that with serious voter apathy and you get this extreme result.

[Banquo]

I'm finding the vote share chat more than a little tedious, and the suggestion that it points to a lack of legitimacy is frankly crackers.

Winning 34% of the vote in a 2 horse race **might** indicate ... something. Winning 34% of the vote when there are 6 or 7 parties to choose from is a genuine result.

Everyone who voted for a party other than Conservative knew that they were contributing to a Labour win. Those Reform voters weren't voting Reform to get a Rf-Con coalition government, they knew they were contributing to a Labour win.

To ignore the multiple nuances involved in a GE and simply look at a 34% vote share as if it were only a 2 horse race, to me that's a completely illegitimate analysis

The chat should be about turnout if anything.

[Sandydragon]

I'm finding the vote share chat more than a little tedious, and the suggestion that it points to a lack of legitimacy is frankly crackers.

Winning 34% of the vote in a 2 horse race **might** indicate ... something. Winning 34% of the vote when there are 6 or 7 parties to choose from is a genuine result.

Everyone who voted for a party other than Conservative knew that they were contributing to a Labour win. Those Reform voters weren't voting Reform to get a Rf-Con coalition government, they knew they were contributing to a Labour win.

To ignore the multiple nuances involved in a GE and simply look at a 34% vote share as if it were only a 2 horse race, to me that's a completely illegitimate analysis

Labour won fair and square under the present system.

I think the bigger issue is the lack of overall turnout which is low, but we’ve seen that before and provided it’s not repeated isn’t a huge concern.

[Sandydragon]

Starmwr and Davey played a blinder under the rules of the system.

Nobody should be denying that, its self evident, terrific campaigning and coordinating/capitalising on tactical voting. Bit like Brexit . played the system rules.

Except for false claims
Of £350m a week

[Banquo]

Starmwr and Davey played a blinder under the rules of the system.

Nobody should be denying that, its self evident, terrific campaigning and coordinating/capitalising on tactical voting. Bit like Brexit . played the system rules.

Except for false claims
Of £350m a week

so no false claims by Labour or the libral demcrats ? . i was mildly joking.

[Sandydragon]

Also the high likelihood of a landslide would put some people off voting. Must have contributed a bit to the lower turnout.

[Sandydragon]

Nobody should be denying that, its self evident, terrific campaigning and coordinating/capitalising on tactical voting. Bit like Brexit . played the system rules.

Except for false claims
Of £350m a week

so no false claims by Labour or the libral demcrats ? . i was mildly joking.

Nothing quite as blatant by anyone as that total bollocks.

[Banquo]

Except for false claims
Of £350m a week

so no false claims by Labour or the libral demcrats ? . i was mildly joking.

Nothing quite as blatant by anyone as that total bollocks.

lying be lying whatever the scale.

[Banquo]

Also the high likelihood of a landslide would put some people off voting. Must have contributed a bit to the lower turnout.

aye, as said above

[Mikey Brown]

A portion of people who feel like they’re just getting fucked by the system (regardless of who is in charge) not making the time in their lives to go out and support that system is not surprising in the slightest, surely?

Obviously there’s a bunch of lazy or indifferent non-voters too, but not giving your time to a system that doesn’t work or serve you seems valid enough.

I do generally think people should get out and vote if they can, but for a lot of people it’s a demand of their time that offers nothing in return. It’s not their responsibility to have to come up with a voting system that actually rewards higher overall turnout.

[Banquo]

A portion of people who feel like they’re just getting fucked by the system (regardless of who is in charge) not making the time in their lives to go out and support that system is not surprising in the slightest, surely?

Obviously there’s a bunch of lazy or indifferent non-voters too, but not giving your time to a system that doesn’t work or serve you seems valid enough.

I do generally think people should get out and vote if they can, but for a lot of people it’s a demand of their time that offers nothing in return. It’s not their responsibility to have to come up with a voting system that actually rewards higher overall turnout.

well if everyone said that, we are truly fucked. Kind of a catch 22 innit....and how much time are we really talking about giving up?

[Mikey Brown]

Of course, yeah, I’m just saying it’s not a question with such a simple answer.

For me it took an extra 5 minutes out of my day. I’m very fortunate. I’m not trekking hours back and forth from a minimum wage job (or two) or dragging a bunch of kids around (or trying to find someone to take care of them on the cheap) in order to change the tally by 1.

Obviously in the real world most politicians aren’t going to use their time and resources on people that don’t care, but it works both ways.

[Stom]

TBF, there were a good number of constituencies where the incumbent won by a substantial amount. In Twickenham, for example, where the Lib Dem MP won 30,000 votes and the Tory 8,000. With the hassle of setting up postal or proxy votes, it was pointless for me, as it was a foregone conclusion.

There is also a massive voter apathy as no party is interested in people.

[Stom]

Of course, yeah, I’m just saying it’s not a question with such a simple answer.

For me it took an extra 5 minutes out of my day. I’m very fortunate. I’m not trekking hours back and forth from a minimum wage job (or two) or dragging a bunch of kids around (or trying to find someone to take care of them on the cheap) in order to change the tally by 1.

Obviously in the real world most politicians aren’t going to use their time and resources on people that don’t care, but it works both ways.

Well, as that's their job...

[Son of Mathonwy]

Although we're probably all happy to see the backs of the tories. There's potentially a lack of democratic legitimacy here.

No one should get a majority on a third of the votes, let alone a massive majority. Starmer was very lucky to win on that share. He needs to do a great job now because his luck will probably not hold (ie the right wing vote will not be split) next time and his ability to brush off PR crises is not the best.

If the Labour 5 year plan looks like it's failing with a year to go he might be wise to introduce PR.

[Sandydragon]

A portion of people who feel like they’re just getting fucked by the system (regardless of who is in charge) not making the time in their lives to go out and support that system is not surprising in the slightest, surely?

Obviously there’s a bunch of lazy or indifferent non-voters too, but not giving your time to a system that doesn’t work or serve you seems valid enough.

I do generally think people should get out and vote if they can, but for a lot of people it’s a demand of their time that offers nothing in return. It’s not their responsibility to have to come up with a voting system that actually rewards higher overall turnout.

And if they don’t vote the they will continue to get the short end of a shitty stick. Old people tend to vote more, so politicians pander to them. It’s really that simple.

[Mikey Brown]

A portion of people who feel like they’re just getting fucked by the system (regardless of who is in charge) not making the time in their lives to go out and support that system is not surprising in the slightest, surely?

Obviously there’s a bunch of lazy or indifferent non-voters too, but not giving your time to a system that doesn’t work or serve you seems valid enough.

I do generally think people should get out and vote if they can, but for a lot of people it’s a demand of their time that offers nothing in return. It’s not their responsibility to have to come up with a voting system that actually rewards higher overall turnout.

And if they don’t vote the they will continue to get the short end of a shitty stick. Old people tend to vote more, so politicians pander to them. It’s really that simple.

Well yeah. Obviously. My question was why anyone seems to be surprised about low voter turnout. People don’t feel they’ve missed out if they never felt there was anything to be gained.

[Puja]

A portion of people who feel like they’re just getting fucked by the system (regardless of who is in charge) not making the time in their lives to go out and support that system is not surprising in the slightest, surely?

Obviously there’s a bunch of lazy or indifferent non-voters too, but not giving your time to a system that doesn’t work or serve you seems valid enough.

I do generally think people should get out and vote if they can, but for a lot of people it’s a demand of their time that offers nothing in return. It’s not their responsibility to have to come up with a voting system that actually rewards higher overall turnout.

And if they don’t vote the they will continue to get the short end of a shitty stick. Old people tend to vote more, so politicians pander to them. It’s really that simple.

But young people did vote in large numbers in 2017 and 2019. From their perspective, it got them nowhere, and the guy who came in to replace the one they voted for, took away all of the policies and positions that attracted them, and scoured the party clear of any hint of those policies and positions coming back in future. I don't disagree with your "don't vote, don't complain" position in the slightest, but I also do get why quite a few feel like they're not going to get listened to even when they do vote.

Puja

[Stom]

A portion of people who feel like they’re just getting fucked by the system (regardless of who is in charge) not making the time in their lives to go out and support that system is not surprising in the slightest, surely?

Obviously there’s a bunch of lazy or indifferent non-voters too, but not giving your time to a system that doesn’t work or serve you seems valid enough.

I do generally think people should get out and vote if they can, but for a lot of people it’s a demand of their time that offers nothing in return. It’s not their responsibility to have to come up with a voting system that actually rewards higher overall turnout.

And if they don’t vote the they will continue to get the short end of a shitty stick. Old people tend to vote more, so politicians pander to them. It’s really that simple.

But young people did vote in large numbers in 2017 and 2019. From their perspective, it got them nowhere, and the guy who came in to replace the one they voted for, took away all of the policies and positions that attracted them, and scoured the party clear of any hint of those policies and positions coming back in future. I don't disagree with your "don't vote, don't complain" position in the slightest, but I also do get why quite a few feel like they're not going to get listened to even when they do vote.

Puja

Exactly. When the vote is for someone who represents their views vs someone who does not, it’s easy. When it’s between two people who seemingly do not care about you at all…