Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

13468911

Comments

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719

    Patrick 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.
    How creative were you?
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Alistair said:

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

    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.
    Its because very few people are interested.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles 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.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles 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
    The rules are not simple , A wealthy person with a 2nd home in say Cornwall who spends half a dozen weekends there a year can choose to use their vote to subvert the wishes of local people who live there all the year round .
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,149

    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).
    Universal suffrage is about being eligible and able vote. Since young voters are as a whole more able to move easily than elderly voters who may be on crutches or have other disabilities they are just as able if not more able to vote.

    Laziness is not a disqualification it is a choice.
    Voting is the most fundamental of civic rights and there should be an obligation to make it as easy as possible. The technology is there so why not use it?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    Patrick 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.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    tlg86 said:

    Patrick 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.
    How creative were you?
    Not very. I drew a line through all the boxes and then wrote the words "abstain in person" in a box on the rest of the form.

    Drawing a cock and balls would have been slightly unseemly.
  • ChaosOdinChaosOdin Posts: 67
    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.
    Women in some immigrant communities would have their votes stolen from them in online voting. We should be restricting postal voting, not extending voting online.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 17,549
    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles 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.
  • It's possible Abbott did not tell anyone she was ill. She likes being on the telly.

    It seems more as though nobody told Abbott she was ill.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,769

    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.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,655
    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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,478
    @AlastairMeeks Did you cast an empty ballot or ?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566
    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles 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.
    Personally I see it as selling ones vote for personal gain. The fact that gain has no obvious monetary value is beside the point. It should be illegal. It is certainly immoral.
  • PatrickPatrick Posts: 225

    Stephen Bush:

    Jeremy Corbyn will beat Ed Miliband in vote share, but will end up with fewer seats

    My strong expectation from travelling the country and talking to campaigners is that Jeremy Corbyn will beat Ed Miliband’s vote share in 2015 and may even match Tony Blair’s in 2005. But I also think that these extra voters are insufficiently distributed thanks to first past the post, and that the party will lose significant numbers of seats.

    This is great if politics is an argument in the pub. But the blunt truth is that Labour would swap Ed Miliband’s 31 per cent for Gordon Brown’s 28 per cent in a heartbeat, as that 28 per cent delivered 40 Scottish Labour MPs and a hung parliament.

    It feels to me that once again, Labour will have gained voters while moving further away from office.


    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/06/britain-brink-most-dangerous-constitutional-rewrite-modern-history

    And the constituency changes the Tories will oversee in the next parliament will make things even more imbalanced, while empowering the executive further. That is not a good thing.

    You mean it will remove the imbalance currently in Labour's favour?

    Ha, ha - the Tories are about to win a huge majority of seats on a minority of the vote. They are then set to make changes that will mean they win even more seats on the same percentage of the vote. What's more, they are also going to reduce the power of the legislature as they do it. I get the fact that parties like to game the system to their advantage, but it is not good for our democracy.
    You disagree with updating electoral boundaries! Spiffing.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    kle4 said:

    Patrick 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.
    It only increases the voteshare of both the Conservatives and Labour, so I don't understand doing that myself if you aren't fond of either.
  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171

    It's possible Abbott did not tell anyone she was ill. She likes being on the telly.

    It seems more as though nobody told Abbott she was ill.

    It will come out after the election but we all know she is not ill. She is well enough to walk to a tube station but not well enough to go on Womens hour. What type of illness is that?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    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.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759

    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.
    By selling ebooks perhaps?

    Increasing desire to vote seems easy - have at least one person promise to abolish tuition fees every election.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,655

    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).
    Laziness is a disqualifier in every other aspect of life.

    The polling station approach is superior for two reasons:

    a) it affords a moment of quiet solemn reflection, which underlines the importance of the decision. This isn't about who wins Britains Got Xfactor on the Island, it's about who governs us for 5 years or whether we leave the EU. That matters and the process should reflect that. Indeed I quite like the French approach where the preceding day is a day for contemplation and reflection.

    b) it ensures no coercion of the voter in the polling booth. Online voting could be open to all sorts of coercion.

    Pen and paper - beats the Russians, terrorists and angry mob every time.

    Give it 30 years, the arts of paper and pencil manufacture will have died out.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Disappointing lack of Traveljunkie(?) comment this morning.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,149
    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.
    If you're worried about the security of voting you must be very concerned about our current system, where I just need to know someone's name and address in order to steal their vote.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Jonathan 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.
  • PatrickPatrick Posts: 225
    matt said:

    Disappointing lack of Traveljunkie(?) comment this morning.

    He's finished his gig. Polling's started.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,478
    currystar said:

    It's possible Abbott did not tell anyone she was ill. She likes being on the telly.

    It seems more as though nobody told Abbott she was ill.

    It will come out after the election but we all know she is not ill. She is well enough to walk to a tube station but not well enough to go on Womens hour. What type of illness is that?
    I was discussing this this morning with my Corbyn supporting other half, we had a think and are both concerned for her health actually. Hopefully it is nothing serious, I'm honestly wondering if she has a brain tumour though - her deteroriation throughout the campaign was very concerning.
    Hopefully it is just stress because she isn't up to the job.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,769

    Jonathan 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.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 21,536
    Polling busier than at last GE in my village hall, my village is mostly made up of oldies

    Should be good news for TM, but then since Im in a super safe tory seat, practically it makes no difference
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    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_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 7,655

    Charles 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
    Have to say that's the way I read it, whatever happened to ONE MAN ONE VOTE. Though probably legal this is a cynical and immoral practise.
    Legality is not a foregone conclusion, although I think the Electoral Commission have said they are ok with it.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    I'm abstaining, I refuse to endorse any of the candidates.
  • 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.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    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.
    Not really. By comment consent the Leave campaign last year was pretty rubbish. The Remain campaign was worse.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821
    matt said:

    Disappointing lack of Traveljunkie(?) comment this morning.

    he must be travelling.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles 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!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,875

    So, anyone here having doubts about a Con majority?

    Yes - me, as I said a few days ago, even before the estimable Mr Herdson's post.

    I do not like Mr Corbyn and what he stands for but there is no doubt that he has run a much more effective campaign than anyone expected. Whether it is effective in terms of winning seats / votes we shall see.

    The big disappointment for me has been the Lib Dems. What on earth happened there?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821

    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?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,478
    All these anecdotes making me think my turnout buy at £40/pt 63 overs looks ok.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414

    matt said:

    Disappointing lack of Traveljunkie(?) comment this morning.

    he must be travelling.
    Or high.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan 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.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,450
    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?
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,924
    Patrick said:

    Stephen Bush:

    Jeremy Corbyn will beat Ed Miliband in vote share, but will end up with fewer seats

    My strong expectation from travelling the country and talking to campaigners is that Jeremy Corbyn will beat Ed Miliband’s vote share in 2015 and may even match Tony Blair’s in 2005. But I also think that these extra voters are insufficiently distributed thanks to first past the post, and that the party will lose significant numbers of seats.

    This is great if politics is an argument in the pub. But the blunt truth is that Labour would swap Ed Miliband’s 31 per cent for Gordon Brown’s 28 per cent in a heartbeat, as that 28 per cent delivered 40 Scottish Labour MPs and a hung parliament.

    It feels to me that once again, Labour will have gained voters while moving further away from office.


    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/06/britain-brink-most-dangerous-constitutional-rewrite-modern-history

    And the constituency changes the Tories will oversee in the next parliament will make things even more imbalanced, while empowering the executive further. That is not a good thing.

    You mean it will remove the imbalance currently in Labour's favour?

    Ha, ha - the Tories are about to win a huge majority of seats on a minority of the vote. They are then set to make changes that will mean they win even more seats on the same percentage of the vote. What's more, they are also going to reduce the power of the legislature as they do it. I get the fact that parties like to game the system to their advantage, but it is not good for our democracy.
    You disagree with updating electoral boundaries! Spiffing.

    I disagree with reducing their number to 600, so empowering the executive, and choosing criteria that clearly favours the Tories. But I can understand why Tories would disagree with me.

  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    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
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited June 2017

    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 and democracy down.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    AndyJS 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.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Con+Lab GE totals - where will we be tonight ?

    2015 67.3%
    2010 65.1%
    2005 67.6%
    2001 72.4 %
    1997 73.9 %

    Survation predicting 81%, ICM 79%.


  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    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.

    If we’ve gone through all this to get back to where we started .......
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821
    Ishmael_Z 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).
    Laziness is a disqualifier in every other aspect of life.

    The polling station approach is superior for two reasons:

    a) it affords a moment of quiet solemn reflection, which underlines the importance of the decision. This isn't about who wins Britains Got Xfactor on the Island, it's about who governs us for 5 years or whether we leave the EU. That matters and the process should reflect that. Indeed I quite like the French approach where the preceding day is a day for contemplation and reflection.

    b) it ensures no coercion of the voter in the polling booth. Online voting could be open to all sorts of coercion.

    Pen and paper - beats the Russians, terrorists and angry mob every time.

    Give it 30 years, the arts of paper and pencil manufacture will have died out.
    I think pen and paper will be with us for a long time yet. I'm sure real books sales increased recently as E-book sales fell.
  • Carolus_RexCarolus_Rex Posts: 1,414
    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.
    I agree. Laziness is a choice.

    Voting should be easy but not too easy. Make it too easy and it won't be taken seriously. I think we have the balance about right.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013

    Stephen Bush:

    Jeremy Corbyn will beat Ed Miliband in vote share, but will end up with fewer seats

    My strong expectation from travelling the country and talking to campaigners is that Jeremy Corbyn will beat Ed Miliband’s vote share in 2015 and may even match Tony Blair’s in 2005. But I also think that these extra voters are insufficiently distributed thanks to first past the post, and that the party will lose significant numbers of seats.

    This is great if politics is an argument in the pub. But the blunt truth is that Labour would swap Ed Miliband’s 31 per cent for Gordon Brown’s 28 per cent in a heartbeat, as that 28 per cent delivered 40 Scottish Labour MPs and a hung parliament.

    It feels to me that once again, Labour will have gained voters while moving further away from office.


    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/06/britain-brink-most-dangerous-constitutional-rewrite-modern-history

    And the constituency changes the Tories will oversee in the next parliament will make things even more imbalanced, while empowering the executive further. That is not a good thing.

    You mean it will remove the imbalance currently in Labour's favour?

    Ha, ha - the Tories are about to win a huge majority of seats on a minority of the vote. They are then set to make changes that will mean they win even more seats on the same percentage of the vote. What's more, they are also going to reduce the power of the legislature as they do it. I get the fact that parties like to game the system to their advantage, but it is not good for our democracy.
    The people were offered an alternative to FPTP and turned it down.

    You're objecting to making FPTP, for all its shortcomings, fairer? (Or to less unfair?)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    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.
    Your first sentence confuses me - they want to vote but not enough to take a short trip to a polling station or request a pistol ballot? They certainly don't care much about voting if that is the case, which again makes the point the problem is not caring enough. This is why compulsory voting conflicts me, as I want people to vote, but akso be free to choose, even to not bother. If someone cares so little they do not bother now, I want to convince them otherwise, but if they choose to let an overcat Sky stop them, that's their choice to prioritise staying dry over participating.

    How about we move to online voting once turnout improves? So it is about perceived efficiencies of the system.
  • BromBrom Posts: 3,760
    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.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    Steady turnout in Edinburgh East.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,149
    edited June 2017

    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.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,524
    edited June 2017

    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles 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!
    There should be 50 seats in Parliament set aside for each 2% that a party gets, and the candidates with the highest number of votes become an MP, ie in 2015 UKIP would have got Carswell plus their the next 6 candidates w the highest vote.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 35,924

    Stephen Bush:

    Jeremy Corbyn will beat Ed Miliband in vote share, but will end up with fewer seats

    My strong expectation from travelling the country and talking to campaigners is that Jeremy Corbyn will beat Ed Miliband’s vote share in 2015 and may even match Tony Blair’s in 2005. But I also think that these extra voters are insufficiently distributed thanks to first past the post, and that the party will lose significant numbers of seats.

    This is great if politics is an argument in the pub. But the blunt truth is that Labour would swap Ed Miliband’s 31 per cent for Gordon Brown’s 28 per cent in a heartbeat, as that 28 per cent delivered 40 Scottish Labour MPs and a hung parliament.

    It feels to me that once again, Labour will have gained voters while moving further away from office.


    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/06/britain-brink-most-dangerous-constitutional-rewrite-modern-history

    And the constituency changes the Tories will oversee in the next parliament will make things even more imbalanced, while empowering the executive further. That is not a good thing.

    You mean it will remove the imbalance currently in Labour's favour?

    Ha, ha - the Tories are about to win a huge majority of seats on a minority of the vote. They are then set to make changes that will mean they win even more seats on the same percentage of the vote. What's more, they are also going to reduce the power of the legislature as they do it. I get the fact that parties like to game the system to their advantage, but it is not good for our democracy.
    The people were offered an alternative to FPTP and turned it down.

    You're objecting to making FPTP, for all its shortcomings, fairer? (Or to less unfair?)

    No, I am objecting to making it even more favourable to the Tories. Just as previously I objected to it being too favourable to Labour. I also think that further empowering the executive is immensely dangerous.

  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    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.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,328

    matt said:

    Disappointing lack of Traveljunkie(?) comment this morning.

    he must be travelling.
    His contract probably only went up until polls opened.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan 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.
    how do you know what sort of Brexit the Conservatives want to deliver? I'm still waiting for them to give me more than a clue.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,615

    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.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,478
    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.

    I'm not surprised, the level of shy Toryism this election must be through the roof on social media. You're an awful awful person if you're voting for May.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited June 2017
    The 25 to 34 turnout will be low as they are all metrosexual hipsters sorting out their life insurance with Beagle Street and snorting coke after their vanilla latte.
    Generation Y gits in other words
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 11,591
    Pulpstar said:

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

    Every single election Pulps!!!

    You'll have to wait for the official figures.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Brom, trying to guess the extent or existence of shy Tory voters might be like trying to spot black holes or dark matter. You can't see them directly, but there are subtle signs (arcing starlight or insufficient gravity from normal matter).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,753
    Chameleon said:

    matt said:

    Disappointing lack of Traveljunkie(?) comment this morning.

    he must be travelling.
    His contract probably only went up until polls opened.
    He read the joke about astroturfers getting footballers' wages and decided to go on strike.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,450

    tlg86 said:

    Patrick 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.
    How creative were you?
    Not very. I drew a line through all the boxes and then wrote the words "abstain in person" in a box on the rest of the form.

    Drawing a cock and balls would have been slightly unseemly.
    And might have been interpreted as a vote for UKIP.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    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.
    Correct, ditto ukip albeit for different reasons. As the results will show, nobody outside the lib dem circles takes Farron seriously.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792

    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.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,811
    Chameleon said:

    matt said:

    Disappointing lack of Traveljunkie(?) comment this morning.

    he must be travelling.
    His contract probably only went up until polls opened.
    I'm fully expecting SeanT to come along sometime and say HAHAHA you fools, I was him all along!

    Mine you we had a few posters over the years which have suddently 'vanished' post elections haven't we...
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    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 and democracy down.
    Bit harsh?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821
    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.

    they're too busy trying to disguise the size of their garden in case Jezza gets in.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    I draw a distinction between not voting and abstaining in person. Whatever else one might think about a choice to abstain so, they cannot be said to be lazy, disengaged or implicitly supporting the status quo.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    In 2015 ukip got 12.6% with approx 600 candidates, this time they have less than half. I'll be amazed if they exceed 2%
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    The key sentence regarding the change in approach for the latest YouGov poll, which lengthened the Tory lead:

    We assume uncertain voters who say they “don’t know” at this stage won’t actually vote, but those who say they are 8+/10 certain to vote we have reallocated back to the party they voted for in 2015

    This has flattered the minor parties slightly - and probably indicates that a greater proportion of the undecided came from their former voters in the first place. The Tory vote share remained unchanged, but Labour's dropped by three. So there would appear to be a batch of undecided former UKIP, Green, SNP and LibDem voters wondering to the wire whether or not to jump towards Corbyn?
  • TudorRoseTudorRose Posts: 1,662

    AndyJS 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.
    I voted a bit earlier (around 8.50am) and it was empty in my polling station, which is right next to a very busy primary school. Mind you the weather up here (Lancashire) is appalling at the moment.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,769
    edited June 2017

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan 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 wroups - i.e. the young would vote. You can say (if you are happy with the end result which is bwalk 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.
    Trouble is that a government Will be formed, none of the above is not an option. For me it came down to Brexit. May's narrow approach coupled with her clear lack of ability represents a real risk. I had to vote against that.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    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.
    Even I wouldn't vote for me. Can you imagine it?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    Stephen Bush:

    Jeremy Corbyn will beat Ed Miliband in vote share, but will end up with fewer seats

    My strong expectation from travelling the country and talking to campaigners is that Jeremy Corbyn will beat Ed Miliband’s vote share in 2015 and may even match Tony Blair’s in 2005. But I also think that these extra voters are insufficiently distributed thanks to first past the post, and that the party will lose significant numbers of seats.

    This is great if politics is an argument in the pub. But the blunt truth is that Labour would swap Ed Miliband’s 31 per cent for Gordon Brown’s 28 per cent in a heartbeat, as that 28 per cent delivered 40 Scottish Labour MPs and a hung parliament.

    It feels to me that once again, Labour will have gained voters while moving further away from office.


    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/06/britain-brink-most-dangerous-constitutional-rewrite-modern-history

    And the constituency changes the Tories will oversee in the next parliament will make things even more imbalanced, while empowering the executive further. That is not a good thing.

    You mean it will remove the imbalance currently in Labour's favour?

    Ha, ha - the Tories are about to win a huge majority of seats on a minority of the vote. They are then set to make changes that will mean they win even more seats on the same percentage of the vote. What's more, they are also going to reduce the power of the legislature as they do it. I get the fact that parties like to game the system to their advantage, but it is not good for our democracy.
    The people were offered an alternative to FPTP and turned it down.

    You're objecting to making FPTP, for all its shortcomings, fairer? (Or to less unfair?)
    If it is already unfair in the Tories' favour, it would be even less fair if the bias were greater.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 1,821
    Pulpstar said:

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

    good luck with all your bets Mr Pulp. I followed a couple of your suggestions and hope I haven't jinxed them
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    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.
    I'm sure you feel better for saying that
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,615
    edited June 2017
    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.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,035
    edited June 2017
    "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."

    ___________________________________________________________________

    As a wet Tory, I'm just hoping that a bigger majority helps keep under control the never satisfied headbangers in the party and therefore deliver not such a hard Brexit in the end as they might press for.

    There's absolutely no guarantee of course but compared to the shite other options you lay out - there's at least a chance that might happen.

    TM was a quiet remainer and has helped ensure 2 of the leading leavers (Boris and DD) can't run away from taking some responsibility.

    The least bad option therefore and the best hope (if not much) of not getting hard Brexit.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Just voted as still no trains - not hugely busy - no hordes of youngsters - I would think from evidence on ground Colchester is a conservative hold - sorry sir bob
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460
    Polling station Cardiff 9.45

    Queue: none
    Voters: one (me)
    Weather: raining stairods.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,328

    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.
    If they had had a half credible leader then they could have made massive inroads.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,450

    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.
    Shame on the politicians.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 97,887
    edited June 2017
    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.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,035

    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.
    Even I wouldn't vote for me. Can you imagine it?
    there's a precedent for that:

    https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/872566736498851840
  • 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?
    It spent some time rearranging its feathers in what I think was the pigeon version of an embarrassed manner and has now flown furtively away.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    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.
    I have a LD/ Remain voting banker friend who thinks exactly like this.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    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.

    Are you a Conservative Party member?
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    just 11 hours and 59 mins to go!
  • Pulpstar said:

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

    Apart from the indifferent weather, I can't understand why the bookies and spread-betting firms fixed on such a lower turnout figure of around 63% - 63.5%. All the more so with repeated suggestions that the 18-24 age group were set to turn out in record numbers for Corbyn.
    Maybe I've missed something here, but I'm expecting a turnout of at least 65.5%, maybe a little higher to produce a handy profit on the spread bet I suggested yesterday.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,478

    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.

    :D
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,213

    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.
    Personally I think that you should go if it's close and spoil your ballot. If not don't waste your time. I think it is wrong to criticise. We have the right to vote and not vote
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 3,835
    edited June 2017
    Charles said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles 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
    It's worse than that - there's some woman from Maidenhead who wants more Tories in Parliament. She seems to think it's more important than people in Oxford and Abingdon getting to select a Lib Dem MP if that's what they want to do. She's been sending leaflets to voters in Oxford and Abingdon telling them how to vote, and for resons very divergent to just local MP reasons.

    It's horrifying in its subversion of our democracy. She even turned up in person a few weeks back and wandered around Abingdon market trying to tell people how to vote.
  • Mrs Fleet has already had a "I want a pen not a pencil" loony... sorry.... concerned citizen. She refused the bottle of tippex I wanted her to put on her desk at the polling station.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    BONG!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    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.
    I explored that line of thought. The problem is that at the end of it you end up with Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. That is not something I could lend my support to.
  • 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.

    Are you a Conservative Party member?
    Yes for over 20 years.

    Not really an issue in Hallam, I know several Tory members who voted tactically for Clegg in 2015.
This discussion has been closed.