politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At least one of the final polls, surely, will have got GE2017

kle4 said:

Ishmael_Z said:

kle4 said:

What problem does voting online solve? It's not hard to get to a polling station, and if it is for some reason, we have postal votes and proxy votes.

Did a yougov poll a few weeks back asking about it, and how much more likely to vote I would be if I could do it online. Since I'd vote anyway I said no more likely, but even some say they would be more likely, as I say it's not hard now.

Counting would be quicker, but is the speed of the count a problem that needs solving?

Assuming it would be secure, usher current system so insecure it needs ditching?

I am pretty certain it would bring turnout into line across all age groups - i.e. the young would vote. You can say (if you are happy with the end result which is bad for Lab/good for con) that if they can't be arsed to walk for 5 minutes in the rain they don't deserve a vote, but that's hard to justify - universal suffrage is what it says it is, and laziness is no more a disqualification than is being white working class with no degree (despite the secret view of the Remainers).

The end result is immaterial to me. If someone chooses to be lazy that is their choice, we have seen young people can and do turnout when they want to, and they used to, so the method of voting is demonstrably not the problem. It's people not wanting to vote. That's what needs addressing, making young people want to vote. Corbyn may well show that can be addressed.

Alistair said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jonathan, having those who vote entered into a one-off lottery would be acceptable

Mr. Woolie, no mention at all of Iran accusing Saudi Arabia on the ITV News at Ten last night. Should be a top story until 10pm.

It is unbelievable the lack of coverage both what is happening in America and the Middle East is not getting.

Bombing of Iranian parliament, Comey testimony, Qatar blockade, Obamacare about to be repealed. It's unbelievable.

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

freetochoose said:

MikeSmithson said:

My vote-swap vote is being cast in Twickenham CON-LD marginal. My actual vote in Bedford CON-LAB marginal.

What's a vote-swap vote?

A despicable attempt to foist an MP on another constituency that they haven't voted for

People can vote for whatever reason they choose, and many of them will be stupid. Convinced by a PEB? Very stupid to be swayed by a 3 minute propaganda video. Convinced by a gaffe from a senior politician? Very stupid as they're not even your MP and what about the overall message. Convinced because 30 years ago they opposed teaching of homosexuality in schools?stupid as maybe they've done a 180 and are now a fearsome equality advocate. Didn't like the candidate's accent, they're not local, didn't work a proper job, stabbed brother in the back, they support a policy you dislike (but really they don't), you misunderstand what's being offered.

Any number of silly reasons peopke choose to vote. Doing so at behest of sone some bloke in Bedford is no different as it is still you Voting in your constituency as you Choose, so still a local voting as they decide.

The intention is quite different: it's basically saying "My voice is more important than anyone else's"

The rules are simple: local people should choose an MP to represent their local area.

In this case a bloke in Bedford wants more LibDem MPs in the national parliament, He thinks that's more important than people in Twickenham getting to select a Tory MP if that's that they want to do (and vice versa for his counterpart). He is prioritizing himself above other citizens.

@freetochoose It's legal, but subverting the very nature of our democracy. If people don't like the rules of the game they should persuade a majority to MPs to change them

AlastairMeeks said:

Patrick said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Paging @AlastairMeeks, can we have your views on this

Labour's Emily Thornberry: 'I've been a gay icon'


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labours-emily-thornberry-ive-been-a-gay-icon-a3559191.html

Erm. Right.

I've just done my civic duty. The polling station in Islington South & Finsbury was several grades beyond brisk and somewhere near packed, though this was very much a pre-work crowd and none looked like first time voters of any vintage.

I surprised myself in the polling booth with just how clear I was in my decision. I thought I was going to struggle much more to make my mind up than I did.

....and?

I abstained in person.

Ishmael_Z said:

kle4 said:

What problem does voting online solve? It's not hard to get to a polling station, and if it is for some reason, we have postal votes and proxy votes.

Did a yougov poll a few weeks back asking about it, and how much more likely to vote I would be if I could do it online. Since I'd vote anyway I said no more likely, but even some say they would be more likely, as I say it's not hard now.

Counting would be quicker, but is the speed of the count a problem that needs solving?

Assuming it would be secure, usher current system so insecure it needs ditching?

I am pretty certain it would bring turnout into line across all age groups - i.e. the young would vote. You can say (if you are happy with the end result which is bad for Lab/good for con) that if they can't be arsed to walk for 5 minutes in the rain they don't deserve a vote, but that's hard to justify - universal suffrage is what it says it is, and laziness is no more a disqualification than is being white working class with no degree (despite the secret view of the Remainers).

glw said:

AndyJS said:

I used to be in favour of online voting but now I'm against it because I wouldn't trust even the more secure system not to be vulnerable to hackers. Hackers are always one step ahead of everyone else.

It's not even hackers in the sense of changing votes that I'd worry about.

There's the potential for abuse if votes are collated and people have access to the live counts. Parties would love to know what is happening in real-time. You are potentially putting an awful lot of trust in a very few people.

There's also the issue with things like a DDoS, data centres going offline, network connections being severed, power failures, and routing problems. Simply tons of problems with infrastructure, many of which would be extremely costly to mitigate.

Pencil and paper, manual counting, and thousands of polling stations may seem antiquated, but it is hard to interfere with and we have a very good understanding of the vulnerabilities.


On top of all that pretty much every computer security researcher has serious reservations about electronic voting and online voting. As JosiasJessop says down thread the people who are most in favour are invariably trying to flog something.

kle4 said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

freetochoose said:

MikeSmithson said:

My vote-swap vote is being cast in Twickenham CON-LD marginal. My actual vote in Bedford CON-LAB marginal.

What's a vote-swap vote?

A despicable attempt to foist an MP on another constituency that they haven't voted for

People can vote for whatever reason they choose, and many of them will be stupid. Convinced by a PEB? Very stupid to be swayed by a 3 minute propaganda video. Convinced by a gaffe from a senior politician? Very stupid as they're not even your MP and what about the overall message. Convinced because 30 years ago they opposed teaching of homosexuality in schools?stupid as maybe they've done a 180 and are now a fearsome equality advocate. Didn't like the candidate's accent, they're not local, didn't work a proper job, stabbed brother in the back, they support a policy you dislike (but really they don't), you misunderstand what's being offered.

Any number of silly reasons peopke choose to vote. Doing so at behest of sone some bloke in Bedford is no different as it is still you Voting in your constituency as you Choose, so still a local voting as they decide.

The intention is quite different: it's basically saying "My voice is more important than anyone else's"

The rules are simple: local people should choose an MP to represent their local area.

In this case a bloke in Bedford wants more LibDem MPs in the national parliament, He thinks that's more important than people in Twickenham getting to select a Tory MP if that's that they want to do (and vice versa for his counterpart). He is prioritizing himself above other citizens.

@freetochoose It's legal, but subverting the very nature of our democracy. If people don't like the rules of the game they should persuade a majority to MPs to change them

I have to fundamentally disagree. The voter in twickenham is still deciding what happens in twickenham. He's just choosing to prioritise his decision by listening to mike, and vice Versa. I'd not do it myself, but I see no difference or outrage as the twickenham voter still makes his own choice in twickenham.

kle4 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Patrick said:

AlastairMeeks said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Paging @AlastairMeeks, can we have your views on this

Labour's Emily Thornberry: 'I've been a gay icon'


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labours-emily-thornberry-ive-been-a-gay-icon-a3559191.html

Erm. Right.

I've just done my civic duty. The polling station in Islington South & Finsbury was several grades beyond brisk and somewhere near packed, though this was very much a pre-work crowd and none looked like first time voters of any vintage.

I surprised myself in the polling booth with just how clear I was in my decision. I thought I was going to struggle much more to make my mind up than I did.

....and?

I abstained in person.

Good stuff.

SquareRoot said:

voting where I live v v slow .about as slow as usual. I think 12 had voted by 9am.. its a tory stronghold maj 30k ish

glw said:

AndyJS said:

I used to be in favour of online voting but now I'm against it because I wouldn't trust even the more secure system not to be vulnerable to hackers. Hackers are always one step ahead of everyone else.

It's not even hackers in the sense of changing votes that I'd worry about.

There's the potential for abuse if votes are collated and people have access to the live counts. Parties would love to know what is happening in real-time. You are potentially putting an awful lot of trust in a very few people.

There's also the issue with things like a DDoS, data centres going offline, network connections being severed, power failures, and routing problems. Simply tons of problems with infrastructure, many of which would be extremely costly to mitigate.

Pencil and paper, manual counting, and thousands of polling stations may seem antiquated, but it is hard to interfere with and we have a very good understanding of the vulnerabilities.


On top of all that pretty much every computer security researcher has serious reservations about electronic voting and online voting. As JosiasJessop says down thread the people who are most in favour are invariably trying to flog something.

AlastairMeeks said:

Jonathan said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

Ishmael_Z said:

kle4 said:

What problem does voting online solve? It's not hard to get to a polling station, and if it is for some reason, we have postal votes and proxy votes.

Did a yougov poll a few weeks back asking about it, and how much more likely to vote I would be if I could do it online. Since I'd vote anyway I said no more likely, but even some say they would be more likely, as I say it's not hard now.

Counting would be quicker, but is the speed of the count a problem that needs solving?

Assuming it would be secure, usher current system so insecure it needs ditching?

I am pretty certain it would bring turnout into line across all age groups - i.e. the young would vote. You can say (if you are happy with the end result which is bad for Lab/good for con) that if they can't be arsed to walk for 5 minutes in the rain they don't deserve a vote, but that's hard to justify - universal suffrage is what it says it is, and laziness is no more a disqualification than is being white working class with no degree (despite the secret view of the Remainers).

The end result is immaterial to me. If someone chooses to be lazy that is their choice, we have seen young people can and do turnout when they want to, and they used to, so the method of voting is demonstrably not the problem. It's people not wanting to vote. That's what needs addressing, making young people want to vote. Corbyn may well show that can be addressed.

If the publishing industry sells fewer books, publishers would be laughed out of town if they suggested making buying books compulsory. They would rightly be told to make the product more attractive.

Voting isn't buying.

No. No one would pay money for the shit product on offer.

Ishmael_Z said:

kle4 said:

What problem does voting online solve? It's not hard to get to a polling station, and if it is for some reason, we have postal votes and proxy votes.

Did a yougov poll a few weeks back asking about it, and how much more likely to vote I would be if I could do it online. Since I'd vote anyway I said no more likely, but even some say they would be more likely, as I say it's not hard now.

Counting would be quicker, but is the speed of the count a problem that needs solving?

Assuming it would be secure, usher current system so insecure it needs ditching?

I am pretty certain it would bring turnout into line across all age groups - i.e. the young would vote. You can say (if you are happy with the end result which is bad for Lab/good for con) that if they can't be arsed to walk for 5 minutes in the rain they don't deserve a vote, but that's hard to justify - universal suffrage is what it says it is, and laziness is no more a disqualification than is being white working class with no degree (despite the secret view of the Remainers).

Alice_Aforethought said:

IanB2 said:

Yet his detractors will argue that Labour wouldn't have started so low in the polls without him, will see Labour losing seats in opposition as obvious bad rather than good news, and wonder whether under someone else the arrogant complacent shambles that has been May's campaign might have been beaten?

Wasn't May's campaign a shambles largely because she faced only Corbyn?

Against a more effective leader, the poll leads would have been less inviting, the need to come up with a better manifesto and campaign more obvious, the effort in organising the latter hard ti hide, and a snap election harder to call in the first place.

Of course we have yet to see whether May's campaign was a shambles or not. What we are calling a shambles is the inputs. The proof of the pudding is in the outputs. If she wins by 100 seats then by definition it was the other campaigns that were the shambles.

bigjohnowls said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

freetochoose said:

MikeSmithson said:

My vote-swap vote is being cast in Twickenham CON-LD marginal. My actual vote in Bedford CON-LAB marginal.

What's a vote-swap vote?

A despicable attempt to foist an MP on another constituency that they haven't voted for

People can vote for whatever reason they choose, and many of them will be stupid. Convinced by a PEB? Very stupid to be swayed by a 3 minute propaganda video. Convinced by a gaffe from a senior politician? Very stupid as they're not even your MP and what about the overall message. Convinced because 30 years ago they opposed teaching of homosexuality in schools?stupid as maybe they've done a 180 and are now a fearsome equality advocate. Didn't like the candidate's accent, they're not local, didn't work a proper job, stabbed brother in the back, they support a policy you dislike (but really they don't), you misunderstand what's being offered.

Any number of silly reasons peopke choose to vote. Doing so at behest of sone some bloke in Bedford is no different as it is still you Voting in your constituency as you Choose, so still a local voting as they decide.

The intention is quite different: it's basically saying "My voice is more important than anyone else's"

The rules are simple: local people should choose an MP to represent their local area.

In this case a bloke in Bedford wants more LibDem MPs in the national parliament, He thinks that's more important than people in Twickenham getting to select a Tory MP if that's that they want to do (and vice versa for his counterpart). He is prioritizing himself above other citizens.

@freetochoose It's legal, but subverting the very nature of our democracy. If people don't like the rules of the game they should persuade a majority to MPs to change them

FFS Tories are the worst offenders.

Bussing people in to prioritize the party over democracy itself.

Fleet_of_Worlds said:

In unrelated news, a pigeon has just conducted what my aviation geek friends would euphemistically call a 'forced landing', very violently, on the roof of my conservatory, causing me to empty a mug of tea over my lap. It's definitely tea. Not last minute Tory nerves.

paulyork64 said:

matt said:

Disappointing lack of Traveljunkie(?) comment this morning.

he must be travelling.

Cyclefree said:

The big disappointment for me has been the Lib Dems. What on earth happened there?

Chris said:

Cyclefree said:

The big disappointment for me has been the Lib Dems. What on earth happened there?

Tim Farron. Who'd have thought he would be quite so bad?

AndyJS said:

SquareRoot said:

voting where I live v v slow .about as slow as usual. I think 12 had voted by 9am.. its a tory stronghold maj 30k ish

Not many seats have a majority that large. Must be somewhere like North East Hampshire.

peter_from_putney said:

So as I understand things, we are still awaiting the final forecasts from Ipsos MORI & JackW.
In his final analysis, the much lauded but less evident than previously Stephen Fisher favours the Kantar model which is less Tory friendly than most others, giving the Tories a modest 5% lead.
Prof. Fisher forecasts the Blue Team to achieve a modest majority of 48 seats, with a surprisingly low 87% (or 7 in 8) chance of achieving a majority), and interestingly only a 1/100th chance of achieving a landslide, i.e. 100+ seat majority ...... potential for egg on face there methinks.

OGH's summary rightly praises the courage of the pollsters, particularly ICM and Survation in sticking to their guns, but I'm surprised that YouGov escapes any Smithsonian criticism following the 11th+ hour changes to their model, resulting in significant changes to their erstwhile GE seat forecasts, which many of us found bizarre to put it very mildly indeed.

AndyJS said:

Ishmael_Z said:

kle4 said:

What problem does voting online solve? It's not hard to get to a polling station, and if it is for some reason, we have postal votes and proxy votes.

Did a yougov poll a few weeks back asking about it, and how much more likely to vote I would be if I could do it online. Since I'd vote anyway I said no more likely, but even some say they would be more likely, as I say it's not hard now.

Counting would be quicker, but is the speed of the count a problem that needs solving?

Assuming it would be secure, usher current system so insecure it needs ditching?

I am pretty certain it would bring turnout into line across all age groups - i.e. the young would vote. You can say (if you are happy with the end result which is bad for Lab/good for con) that if they can't be arsed to walk for 5 minutes in the rain they don't deserve a vote, but that's hard to justify - universal suffrage is what it says it is, and laziness is no more a disqualification than is being white working class with no degree (despite the secret view of the Remainers).

Personally, I think laziness should be a disqualification from voting, if you can't be bothered to make it to the polling station or apply for a postal vote.

Ishmael_Z said:

kle4 said:

Ishmael_Z said:

kle4 said:

What problem does voting online solve? It's not hard to get to a polling station, and if it is for some reason, we have postal votes and proxy votes.

Did a yougov poll a few weeks back asking about it, and how much more likely to vote I would be if I could do it online. Since I'd vote anyway I said no more likely, but even some say they would be more likely, as I say it's not hard now.

Counting would be quicker, but is the speed of the count a problem that needs solving?

Assuming it would be secure, usher current system so insecure it needs ditching?

I am pretty certain it would bring turnout into line across all age groups - i.e. the young would vote. You can say (if you are happy with the end result which is bad for Lab/good for con) that if they can't be arsed to walk for 5 minutes in the rain they don't deserve a vote, but that's hard to justify - universal suffrage is what it says it is, and laziness is no more a disqualification than is being white working class with no degree (despite the secret view of the Remainers).

The end result is immaterial to me. If someone chooses to be lazy that is their choice, we have seen young people can and do turnout when they want to, and they used to, so the method of voting is demonstrably not the problem. It's people not wanting to vote. That's what needs addressing, making young people want to vote. Corbyn may well show that can be addressed.

It isn't people absolutely not wanting to vote, it is not wanting to vote badly enough to do it. I bet it would at least increase 18-24 turnout by 30% if you did it online.

OldKingCole said:

bigjohnowls said:

Charles said:

kle4 said:

Charles said:

freetochoose said:

MikeSmithson said:

My vote-swap vote is being cast in Twickenham CON-LD marginal. My actual vote in Bedford CON-LAB marginal.

What's a vote-swap vote?

A despicable attempt to foist an MP on another constituency that they haven't voted for

People can vote for whatever reason they choose, and many of them will be stupid. Convinced by a PEB? Very stupid to be swayed by a 3 minute propaganda video. Convinced by a gaffe from a senior politician? Very stupid as they're not even your MP and what about the overall message. Convinced because 30 years ago they opposed teaching of homosexuality in schools?stupid as maybe they've done a 180 and are now a fearsome equality advocate. Didn't like the candidate's accent, they're not local, didn't work a proper job, stabbed brother in the back, they support a policy you dislike (but really they don't), you misunderstand what's being offered.

Any number of silly reasons peopke choose to vote. Doing so at behest of sone some bloke in Bedford is no different as it is still you Voting in your constituency as you Choose, so still a local voting as they decide.

The intention is quite different: it's basically saying "My voice is more important than anyone else's"

The rules are simple: local people should choose an MP to represent their local area.

In this case a bloke in Bedford wants more LibDem MPs in the national parliament, He thinks that's more important than people in Twickenham getting to select a Tory MP if that's that they want to do (and vice versa for his counterpart). He is prioritizing himself above other citizens.

@freetochoose It's legal, but subverting the very nature of our democracy. If people don't like the rules of the game they should persuade a majority to MPs to change them

FFS Tories are the worst offenders.

Bussing people in to prioritize the party over democracy itself.

Surely it’s one of the reasons we should consider changing the system. People want their vote to count. Otherwise, most of the time, the only way one can affect who one’s MP is is to join the local ‘top’ party and attend the candidate selection meetings. That’s what happened in Soviet Russia!

MonikerDiCanio said:

freetochoose said:

I'm abstaining, I refuse to endorse any of the candidates.

They're all inadequate but it's your democratic duty to choose the least inadequate. You've let yourself down.

AlastairMeeks said:

Jonathan said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Jonathan said:

AlastairMeeks said:

kle4 said:

Ishmael_Z said:

kle4 said:

What problem does voting online solve? It's not hard to get to a polling station, and if it is for some reason, we have postal votes and proxy votes.

Did a yougov poll a few weeks back asking about it, and how much more likely to vote I would be if I could do it online. Since I'd vote anyway I said no more likely, but even some say they would be more likely, as I say it's not hard now.

Counting would be quicker, but is the speed of the count a problem that needs solving?

Assuming it would be secure, usher current system so insecure it needs ditching?

I am pretty certain it would bring turnout into line across all age groups - i.e. the young would vote. You can say (if you are happy with the end result which is bad for Lab/good for con) that if they can't be arsed to walk for 5 minutes in the rain they don't deserve a vote, but that's hard to justify - universal suffrage is what it says it is, and laziness is no more a disqualification than is being white working class with no degree (despite the secret view of the Remainers).

The end result is immaterial to me. If someone chooses to be lazy that is their choice, we have seen young people can and do turnout when they want to, and they used to, so the method of voting is demonstrably not the problem. It's people not wanting to vote. That's what needs addressing, making young people want to vote. Corbyn may well show that can be addressed.

If the publishing industry sells fewer books, publishers would be laughed out of town if they suggested making buying books compulsory. They would rightly be told to make the product more attractive.

Voting isn't buying.

No. No one would pay money for the shit product on offer.

Abstentions are submission to the will of others. They get to choose.

Going through my choices:

1) Conservatives - no, can't vote for car crash Brexit, the most damaging decision of my lifetime.

2) Labour - no, can't vote for the dishonest and treacherous cretin.

3) UKIP - are you kidding me?

4) Green - no, not this time. Both irrelevant and far too sympathetic to this version of Labour (see 2 above)

5) Lib Dems - a socially conservative, left wing economic leader is my polar opposite. And their policy on Brexit is stupid. They're irrelevant anyway.

If that's the choice I'm offered, others can get to choose. They're all shit.

Brom said:

Crap anecdote:
All my facebook Labour noise is from those who predominantly live in London, Bristol and Manchester safe seats. Those friends living in suburbia and beyond making no overt political posts.

Pulpstar said:

All these anecdotes making me think my turnout buy at £40/pt 63 overs looks ok.

Chameleon said:

paulyork64 said:

matt said:

Disappointing lack of Traveljunkie(?) comment this morning.

he must be travelling.

His contract probably only went up until polls opened.

not_on_fire said:

freetochoose said:

Chris said:

Cyclefree said:

The big disappointment for me has been the Lib Dems. What on earth happened there?

Tim Farron. Who'd have thought he would be quite so bad?

Just about everybody

To be fair to the LDs, I think their near-wipeout in 2015 has resulted in far less media coverage this time given their low seat numbers. I also suspect that many voters who may have previously backed them see them as a fringe party now and thus more of a wasted vote.

Chameleon said:

paulyork64 said:

matt said:

Disappointing lack of Traveljunkie(?) comment this morning.

he must be travelling.

His contract probably only went up until polls opened.

Brom said:

Crap anecdote:
All my facebook Labour noise is from those who predominantly live in London, Bristol and Manchester safe seats. Those friends living in suburbia and beyond making no overt political posts.

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

SquareRoot said:

voting where I live v v slow .about as slow as usual. I think 12 had voted by 9am.. its a tory stronghold maj 30k ish

Not many seats have a majority that large. Must be somewhere like North East Hampshire.

That's me. Turnout seemed just the same as always to me.

edmundintokyo said:

AlastairMeeks said:

If that's the choice I'm offered, others can get to choose. They're all shit.

Should have stood yourself.

Anyhow if you want to post a rough draft of the message you're planning to spoil your ballot paper with we can help you refine it for maximum punch.

Pulpstar said:

All these anecdotes making me think my turnout buy at £40/pt 63 overs looks ok.

Part of it is that if the British public is going to keep electing idiots who break things, I’d rather this was in a random walk, rather than consistently in the same direction. It’ll be nice to slightly switch the narrative from ‘rise of the far right’ to ‘rise of the incompetent populists’, and nice to see some racist old people on social media losing their shit on election night for once.

The biggest part, however, is that Corbyn’s failures will be acute and obvious. Maybe the only thing left for us is accelerationist incompetence. He probably won’t manage to implement most of the dumb things he wants to do, and those he does will collapse in entertaining ways. If the UK is on its way out, we may as well go out with a bang. A couple of years of commie fuckups and the country will be crying out to Goldman Sachs to save them. The press do a far better job holding Labour to account than the Conservatives, and they’ll have a whale of a time. May, on the other hand, is chronic failure. It’s a full five year plan to turn the country into a worse place to live. It’ll be slow and insidious, and the damage from a hard brexit will just as likely make the public take their anger out on Johnny Immigrant than the government whose fault it is.

not_on_fire said:

freetochoose said:

Chris said:

Cyclefree said:

The big disappointment for me has been the Lib Dems. What on earth happened there?

Tim Farron. Who'd have thought he would be quite so bad?

Just about everybody

To be fair to the LDs, I think their near-wipeout in 2015 has resulted in far less media coverage this time given their low seat numbers. I also suspect that many voters who may have previously backed them see them as a fringe party now and thus more of a wasted vote.

paulyork64 said:

Fleet_of_Worlds said:

In unrelated news, a pigeon has just conducted what my aviation geek friends would euphemistically call a 'forced landing', very violently, on the roof of my conservatory, causing me to empty a mug of tea over my lap. It's definitely tea. Not last minute Tory nerves.

is the pigeon OK?

TheScreamingEagles said:

I voted tactically at this election.

I vote swapped with someone in a Lab/Con marginal, so my vote is being used to maximise the chances of a Tory gain.

I simply could not vote to endorse the hard Brexit, Milibandesque policies of Mrs May.

Nor did I want anything that would make Nick Timothy that his campaign was a success.

Plus whilst Labour are led by Corbyn, we need strong opposition forces, and Nick Clegg would do that.

Had I lived in Don Valley or any other marginal Con/Lab seat with another decent Tory I would have voted Tory.

Pulpstar said:

All these anecdotes making me think my turnout buy at £40/pt 63 overs looks ok.

MonikerDiCanio said:

freetochoose said:

MonikerDiCanio said:

freetochoose said:

I'm abstaining, I refuse to endorse any of the candidates.

They're all inadequate but it's your democratic duty to choose the least inadequate. You've let yourself down.

There is no such thing as democratic duty. In a democracy it is my choice whether or not to vote and who for. If somebody was to give me a reason to vote for them I'd happily do it as I have before.

But they haven't so I'll use the time to do something else.

Millions of noble people died for the privilege that you so nonchalantly discard. Shame on you.

edmundintokyo said:

For anyone else in Antifrank's position, the neo-liberal case for Jeremy Corbyn:
https://medium.com/@roreiy/i-tried-to-write-a-neoliberal-troll-case-for-jeremy-corbyn-i-really-did-69a37b2d5eb

Part of it is that if the British public is going to keep electing idiots who break things, I’d rather this was in a random walk, rather than consistently in the same direction. It’ll be nice to slightly switch the narrative from ‘rise of the far right’ to ‘rise of the incompetent populists’, and nice to see some racist old people on social media losing their shit on election night for once.

The biggest part, however, is that Corbyn’s failures will be acute and obvious. Maybe the only thing left for us is accelerationist incompetence. He probably won’t manage to implement most of the dumb things he wants to do, and those he does will collapse in entertaining ways. If the UK is on its way out, we may as well go out with a bang. A couple of years of commie fuckups and the country will be crying out to Goldman Sachs to save them. The press do a far better job holding Labour to account than the Conservatives, and they’ll have a whale of a time. May, on the other hand, is chronic failure. It’s a full five year plan to turn the country into a worse place to live. It’ll be slow and insidious, and the damage from a hard brexit will just as likely make the public take their anger out on Johnny Immigrant than the government whose fault it is.