Do they still run constituency offices where people can go and ask for help?
Yes. It's the oath of allegiance to the crown that is the sticking point.
Officially - it would be fascinating to see whether, in the event that an oath to the Crown was abolished, SF actually then took their seats to legislate in the British parliament. Part of me suspects they’re hardline enough that the goalposts would then move to still exclude it, but that’s just a hunch.
It's not hard to understand, is it? Republican parties reject the British presence in Ireland, and abstentionism symbolises that. Whether I would sympathize, if I lived there, dunno
Yes, it is hard to understand and even harder to sympathise with. What's the point of voting for someone to represent you who stands on the basis that if elected, they won't do any representing.
But then, I have a blind spot when it comes to symbolism. I don't get it and don't really rate it much. And, besides, this is a tangent.
Well, for Irish Republicans, this is loaded with historical significance - Ireland itself emerged from British rule by rejecting many of the trappings, as well as conducting military campaigns. And the civil war was fought partly over accepting dominion status. Anyway, yes, a tangent
It's not hard to understand, is it? Republican parties reject the British presence in Ireland, and abstentionism symbolises that. Whether I would sympathize, if I lived there, dunno
Yes, it is hard to understand and even harder to sympathise with. What's the point of voting for someone to represent you who stands on the basis that if elected, they won't do any representing.
Well, it's a way of indicating that you feel sufficiently strongly about a particular outcome that you want to express it in a particular way democratically and peacefully.
That's symbolic only in the sense that a lot of other things are that I suspect you wouldn't normally object to.
The problem is when your symbolic action is part of something that has non-symbolic and has non-symbolic consequences for other people. For example, voting to leave the EU as a symbol of your opposition to David Cameron.
Do they still run constituency offices where people can go and ask for help?
Yes. It's the oath of allegiance to the crown that is the sticking point.
Officially - it would be fascinating to see whether, in the event that an oath to the Crown was abolished, SF actually then took their seats to legislate in the British parliament. Part of me suspects they’re hardline enough that the goalposts would then move to still exclude it, but that’s just a hunch.
They take their seats at Stormont even though its powers are legally devolved from Westminster. The difference is they don't need to take the oath of allegiance, so that would seem to be indicative.
Anyone have a feel for how the elections will go in Northern Ireland? I am expecting the DUP to poll badly with the current cloud over Jeffrey Donaldson. I'm not sure it will translate into any big change in seats though - any votes they lose certainly won't be going to Sinn Fein. Maybe chances for Alliance and UUP in places like Antrim and East Belfast.
Splits in the unionist vote may well lead to more Sinn Fein MPs.
The thing is, I don't think there are any seats where this could happen. Sinn Fein have already got all the seats where it used to be an issue (like North Belfast). The closest are East Londonderry and Upper Bann where Unionist parties have 70% and 75% of the vote respectively so would have to be split 3 ways before SF would win. All the other Unionist seats have larger Unionist majorities. (Here's the Guardian constituency map for data)
The problem is when your symbolic action is part of something that has non-symbolic and has non-symbolic consequences for other people. For example, voting to leave the EU as a symbol of your opposition to David Cameron.
I suspect most people who vote for the SF support the views of SF rather than doing so as a means of protesting some other disconnected issue, I don't think the fact that symbolic actions have non-symbolic consequences is in itself a bad thing, people protest various issues all the time - usually with the intention to change something.
The following is my thought-through analysis. I will remain nervous until the votes are counted. Partly because I remember 1992 and partly because I fear just how bad things could be if the Tories don't finally lose after all that's gone on these past few years.
Anyway:
The Conservatives are going to lose.
The question is how big a loss.
Labour needs around a 7% lead to get a majority. Current polling is quite erratic but the lead is ~13-25%. On these numbers, we're talking a Labour landslide.
Two factors to consider:
1. There's a high chance of tactical voting being really important with Labour picking up a handful of extra seats and the LibDems quite a few more. 2. Conventional wisdom is that the polls will narrow as we get closer to the election. For various reasons, I think conventional wisdom is wrong and I think the polls will widen slightly.
So here's a range prediction:
The best the Tories can hope for is a small Labour majority with around 200 Tory MPs left.
My central prediction is a big Labour majority with only ~150 Tory MPs.
The other outlier is really dramatic with tactical voting and a Conservative/Reform vote split leading to fewer than 100 Tory MPs: a wipeout.
The fact that there is a steady trickle of Conservative MPs announcing that they will not be standing for re-election does seem to bode ill for their party's chances. Did anything similar happen before previous elections?
The fact that there is a steady trickle of Conservative MPs announcing that they will not be standing for re-election does seem to bode ill for their party's chances. Did anything similar happen before previous elections?
Yes, quite a few tories stood down before the 1997 election. There was a piece in the Grauniad mentioning this, earlier today, but I can't find it at the moment.
IIRC, the number of tories standing down this time round is slightly higher than in 1997.
It's not hard to understand, is it? Republican parties reject the British presence in Ireland, and abstentionism symbolises that. Whether I would sympathize, if I lived there, dunno
Yes, it is hard to understand and even harder to sympathise with. What's the point of voting for someone to represent you who stands on the basis that if elected, they won't do any representing.
Though, as noted above, Sinn Fein MPs will maintain local offices and be available for constituents to come to them with their concerns, they'll be writing to appropriate Ministers or civil servants raising those concerns. So, they do represent their constituents.
What Sinn Fein MPs won't do is turn up in Parliament to debate UK legislation which they believe should not apply in Northern Ireland, or vote on issues that they believe should not be enforced in Northern Ireland. And, they're voted into office by people who know exactly what their position is and that they won't be taking their seats in the Parliament of the occupying nation.
The fact that there is a steady trickle of Conservative MPs announcing that they will not be standing for re-election does seem to bode ill for their party's chances. Did anything similar happen before previous elections?
Yes, quite a few tories stood down before the 1997 election. There was a piece in the Grauniad mentioning this, earlier today, but I can't find it at the moment.
IIRC, the number of tories standing down this time round is slightly higher than in 1997.
The Guardian says 77 (including Gove), but I don't doubt there'll be more by tomorrow...
Reform are having problems finding candidates, but I don't think anyone need shed any tears over that.
I would like Reform to have enough candidates.
The chances of them winning a few seats is low. And if they have say 50 candidates, (which they will) they can maximise that chance. If they have 650 candidates it doesn't increase their chance of winning a seat or two. It does however increase the chance of several Tories losing their seats.
In the long-term, the demise of Reform/UKIP/FarageForKing or whatever they decide to call themselves next, is vital but in the next few weeks, the damage they can do to the Tories is a public good. It's an almost beautiful irony.
OK, fair comment re Reform. I agree that their eventual demise is something to hope for.
They have an office in Our Town, in a disused shop (there are plenty of them to choose from). We had a UKIP MP for a year or so a while back, he having recklessly left his previous party...
Typical uncertainties on polls, especially the smaller ones which can get all their respondents in a day or two and can thus look at changes since the announcement of the election, would be ±3-5%. Thus the values Telford reported (Lab 41% and Con 20%) are effectively the same as the BBC (Lab 45% and Con 23%). Pooling poll data in the way the BBC is with trending reduces some uncertainties resulting from small sample size, but introduces uncertainties in dealing with differences in polling methodology (this can be very significant in assessing support for smaller parties - some polling agencies will prompt respondents, eg "in the coming election do you intend to vote for Labour or Conservative?", others will ask open questions, eg "in the coming election which party do you intend to vote for?" the two different questions will give very different levels of support for Reform, Greens, LibDems etc) or geographical area (a poll for just over 1000 people across the UK will give very poor data on support for SNP and PC because they won't have enough people responding in Scotland and Wales, larger polls which try to give constituency level predictions tend to give better data on voting in Scotland and Wales).
Turnout is going to be a topic of discussion over the next few weeks.
Firstly, I think turnout is awful. I think it should always be 90% plus and I do believe in compulsory voting.
The data shows that the last time turnout was over 80% was the 1950s! The lowest turnout in recent elections was 2001 with 59.4%
All polling companies ask about likelihood of voting as it has proven vital for accuracy. It's one of the corrections they make to their raw data. If you look at the published data, it's always in there somewhere. Today YouGov on their Twitter feed have highlighted this: they are reporting that 58% of responders are 10/10 certain to vote. They have also put the graphs on that tweet by age which make interesting reading as well.
These data do not point to low turnout at all (by UK general election standards). From this I expect 70%+ turnout. That makes anything other than a Labour majority much less likely.
But I the point is that it would be appropriate for people to declare their data sources if they are claiming to be reporting the state of the polls. Also: whether they are reporting UK or GB (excluding NI) data. Most trends are based on GB data. It makes a material difference.
Moreover, “random person on the internet” is not a data source per se, if you see what I mean.
Turnout is going to be a topic of discussion over the next few weeks.
Firstly, I think turnout is awful. I think it should always be 90% plus and I do believe in compulsory voting.
The data shows that the last time turnout was over 80% was the 1950s! The lowest turnout in recent elections was 2001 with 59.4% ...
I don't agree with you there. If voting were compulsory it would enhance politicians in two delusions,
first that everybody loves them and
second that nearly half the population agrees with and supports them.
That would only encourage them further in the spurious claim invented by Harold Wilson that 'we have a mandate', even worse if followed by 'see, it's in para 37(b)(iii) of our manifesto'.
If it's a democratic freedom that people should be able to vote, it's equally a democratic freedom that they should be free not to.
If people don't vote, politicians should heed that fact. In stead of blaming the electorate, they should ask themselves, 'why?'
The two things I would say about the negative turnout figure is that,
Nobody knows how they would have voted if they had done. The best one can assume is that they are apathetic in the same proportions as those who did vote. And
Those that don't vote forfeit any right for the next five years to criticise the government or to express any view on politics.
The only way I could see compulsory voting working would be for it to be a mandatory public holiday, with clear guidelines for employers of essential staff to ensure they get time off for voting, and the ability to cast a literal protest vote (whether that was a 'none of the above' or similar).
I think the latter is important to avoid the kinds of situations Enoch lays out above, and may even spur politicians to form wider voting coalitions.
Turnout is going to be a topic of discussion over the next few weeks.
Firstly, I think turnout is awful. I think it should always be 90% plus and I do believe in compulsory voting.
The data shows that the last time turnout was over 80% was the 1950s! The lowest turnout in recent elections was 2001 with 59.4% ...
I don't agree with you there. If voting were compulsory it would enhance politicians in two delusions,
first that everybody loves them and
second that nearly half the population agrees with and supports them.
That would only encourage them further in the spurious claim invented by Harold Wilson that 'we have a mandate', even worse if followed by 'see, it's in para 37(b)(iii) of our manifesto'.
If it's a democratic freedom that people should be able to vote, it's equally a democratic freedom that they should be free not to.
If people don't vote, politicians should heed that fact. In stead of blaming the electorate, they should ask themselves, 'why?'
The two things I would say about the negative turnout figure is that,
Nobody knows how they would have voted if they had done. The best one can assume is that they are apathetic in the same proportions as those who did vote. And
Those that don't vote forfeit any right for the next five years to criticise the government or to express any view on politics.
Well argued.
AIUI - and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong - Australia retains a "None of the above" option. I would also want to lose FPTP in favour of regional (~18-20 seat) constituencies. Which would change the landscape quite dramatically.
However, the issue of the non-voters is the self-fulfilling prophecy. "It makes no difference voting, so why bother?" These groups who consistently do not vote are therefore ignored by politicians and are then further disillusioned by the political process.
Anyway, all of that is a tangent (of my making!)
Received wisdom is that there will be low turnout. Low turnout favours the Tories. These data suggest that received wisdom is wrong. Having looked at the YouGov tables, turnout of 70-75% is what I expect.
AFZ
P.s. It seems to be a myth that 'change elections' correlate with higher turnout. '92 had a higher turnout than '97!!
My theory is that those who choose not to vote give a proxy to those who do. Whether unwittingly or not. Silence implies consent is the legal maxim. You consent to whatever decision the others come up with.
I have some anecdotal evidence of young people who are mad keen to vote this time. If this proves to be more than talk, it is good news for Labour.
I am strongly in favour of some sort of PR voting. We could copy the Scottish model. I feel that, among other things, it would end the 'one-party states' in local government and ensure representation for all points of view in Parliament. I find myself, as usual, voting against what I dislike most rather than for what I really want. This necessity breeds cynicism and apathy. As does the related fact that I know, before I cast it, that my vote one way or the other means nothing in my constituency, which in the present circumstance must be 1000-1 on for Labour. At best, only one of two parties can win it, neither of which I really like, but one of which I despise with my soul.
I like the idea of the 'none of the above' option. If you had it, one wonders if it would win some seats!
Yes, but by not posing it as an option, it gets positioned in people's mind as stepping outside the democratic process. Not to mention that you have to be fairly careful while doing so, so you don't end up accidentally endorsing one candidate over the other.
Far better to have an official means of registering displeasure (or pressures build up in the system and then express themselves in unexpected and strange ways)
If anyone does want to spoil their ballot, make sure you don't do so in a way that can be interpreted as preference for one candidate (any affirmative looking mark associated with just one candidate will count as a vote for them*). Even better, write something witty expressing your displeasure at all the candidates and/or the process. All the candidates, agents and some others at the count will see those ballots, and we tend to remember the good spoilt papers. Those are the only people who will know what's written, they'll just be listed as spoilt ballots in the official report.
* I've heard the same story from a couple of people about a council election vote where the voter had gone through the list writing "total w****r", "complete w****r", "not as big a w*****r as the others", "w****r" against the candidates. At the count the returning officer in consultation with all the candidates and agents present assigned a first preference vote to the candidate described as "not as big a w****r", second preference to the simple "w****r" and then discarded the other votes being unable to decide which of "total" or "complete" was the lesser preference.
If anyone does want to spoil their ballot, make sure you don't do so in a way that can be interpreted as preference for one candidate (any affirmative looking mark associated with just one candidate will count as a vote for them*).
Yes, precisely. For understandable reasons the guidance from the EC errs on the side of trying to interpret a marked paper as a vote, in order not to disenfranchise people.
Which just underlines the need for a formal method of registering displeasure. For years, the UKs European Elections served as a free kick against the government (at least from the right) and I don't think the country was best served by that.
Meanwhile, it appears that Sunak is having a break from electioneering, and spending the day being advised by his advisers...to be fair, I don't blame him for standing back from the campaign horror show, given that tory successes and *delivering* are marked today by (a) more than 10000 people crossing the Channel in small boats so far this year, and (b) apparently poisoned water in leafy Beckenham...
The Guardian says 77 (including Gove), but I don't doubt there'll be more by tomorrow...
Reform are having problems finding candidates, but I don't think anyone need shed any tears over that.
I would like Reform to have enough candidates.
The chances of them winning a few seats is low. And if they have say 50 candidates, (which they will) they can maximise that chance. If they have 650 candidates it doesn't increase their chance of winning a seat or two. It does however increase the chance of several Tories losing their seats.
In the long-term, the demise of Reform/UKIP/FarageForKing or whatever they decide to call themselves next, is vital but in the next few weeks, the damage they can do to the Tories is a public good. It's an almost beautiful irony.
I'm not so sure about that. If the Conservatives are totally wiped out there is a possibility they may be replaced as the main party of the Right by Reform or another insurgent party resembling Trump, LePen or AfD. I'd rather that didn't happen.
The Guardian says 77 (including Gove), but I don't doubt there'll be more by tomorrow...
Reform are having problems finding candidates, but I don't think anyone need shed any tears over that.
I would like Reform to have enough candidates.
The chances of them winning a few seats is low. And if they have say 50 candidates, (which they will) they can maximise that chance. If they have 650 candidates it doesn't increase their chance of winning a seat or two. It does however increase the chance of several Tories losing their seats.
In the long-term, the demise of Reform/UKIP/FarageForKing or whatever they decide to call themselves next, is vital but in the next few weeks, the damage they can do to the Tories is a public good. It's an almost beautiful irony.
I'm not so sure about that. If the Conservatives are totally wiped out there is a possibility they may be replaced as the main party of the Right by Reform or another insurgent party resembling Trump, LePen or AfD. I'd rather that didn't happen.
Especially as they've already had to remove 100+ candidates for making offensive (and often racist) remarks:
<snip>I would also want to lose FPTP in favour of regional (~18-20 seat) constituencies. Which would change the landscape quite dramatically. <snip>
I’m not sure it would be entirely a change for the better. Certainly where I am in Cumbria I could see it losing any voice for the rural areas, and having representatives being responsible for covering an enormous area with their constituency offices being largely inaccessible for a considerable part of their electorate. It feels to me like one of those things (like issues of parental choice of schools) where the concept emerges from a predominantly urban/ suburban, densely populated context.
<snip>I would also want to lose FPTP in favour of regional (~18-20 seat) constituencies. Which would change the landscape quite dramatically. <snip>
I’m not sure it would be entirely a change for the better. Certainly where I am in Cumbria I could see it losing any voice for the rural areas, and having representatives being responsible for covering an enormous area with their constituency offices being largely inaccessible for a considerable part of their electorate. It feels to me like one of those things (like issues of parental choice of schools) where the concept emerges from a predominantly urban/ suburban, densely populated context.
When I get time, I'm gonna do a thread on electoral reform. I think multi-seat constituencies would be really good as each of us would be represented by multiple MPs and therefore could write to several of them. I would set up the offices at Westminster so they had their offices grouped together. There is some good cross-party working when MPs share an interest. I think this is to be encouraged. Making MPs into delegations for i.e. Hampshire & The Isle of Wight could be very effective.
Anyways, that's enough for now, I will try not to perpetuate the tangent any further here.
Ipsos and it's still the same. Based on the same data though .
Here is the IPSOS trends page which I presume is the source of the 41/20 figure you quote. The date given for those figures is “8-14 May 2024”, with shifts given from the previous month.
I don’t think IPSOS are updating daily. You can get the latest individual polls and trends at the BBC site or Wikipedia though.
Ipsos and it's still the same. Based on the same data though .
Here is the IPSOS trends page which I presume is the source of the 41/20 figure you quote. The date given for those figures is “8-14 May 2024”, with shifts given from the previous month.
I don’t think IPSOS are updating daily. You can get the latest individual polls and trends at the BBC site or Wikipedia though.
I entirely agree that FPTP is utterly indefensible, but I wouldn't support either of the systems so far advocated on this thread. The added member system in Scotland gives an extra set of members put in to make up the party balance who, unlike the constituency MSPs, don't actually represent anyone. They are simply nominated by their parties.
As @BroJames says, regional constituencies with 18-20 MPs is far too remote.
Much simpler would be a bit of humility and adopt the Irish system more or less as it stands, with constituencies with 4-5 MPs elected by STV. That way, everyone is elected by somebody, and therefore represents somebody. The constituencies would be of broadly comparable equivalent size to some of the old county constituencies in the days of 40/- freeholders, though that was a system which in its details and in its time, nobody in their right mind could defend.
I'd also abolish multiple member wards elected by FPTP in local government. That produces even more distorted results than FPTP in single member constituencies in the Westminster monkey-house. Again, multimember wards with STV would be a lot better.
The list MSPs represent the regions - I think we have 7 representing the Highlands and Islands. I think there is scope for, say, ranking the candidates for your chosen party and running STV/AV for the places won by that party, but I think on balance we're better having an MSP for Argyll & Bute plus the regional list than we would be having 4-5 for, say, Argyll, Bute, Lochaber, Wester Ross and the Inner and Outer Hebrides.
If someone wants "the Scottish system" you've a choice of two options.
One, for the Scottish Parliament there's a mix of FPTP constituencies electing a single MSP to represent them, topped up by MSPs to improve proportionality who represent the regions they stand in. It's a system that works well, with people having a choice of calling on their constituency MSP or one (or more) of their regional MSPs (often both) when needing help.
Two, the system for the local elections with 3 or 4 member wards electing councillors by STV. A Parliament elected with 3 or 4 member constituencies elected by STV would maintain an approximately local representative (though, there would still be some geographically very large constituencies in parts of the country ... but there is already), with in most cases not too poor a mix of different types of area within each constituency (eg: one large town dominating an area that's largely rural).
Well I suppose the good news is that if Sunak is talking about conscription of all 18 year olds starting in 2025, he must know that this is nonsense for a range of reasons; including (declaring self-interest) there would be almost nobody in the cohort of new home undergraduate students in much of the UK in 2025, which would likely send a good number of universities bankrupt. For another, there are simply not enough people in the British armed forces to cope with nearly a million people every year. How would that even work?
He must know that he is talking proper bollocks now, which must mean he is resigned to fail.
Well I suppose the good news is that if Sunak is talking about conscription of all 18 year olds starting in 2025, he must know that this is nonsense for a range of reasons; including (declaring self-interest) there would be almost nobody in the cohort of new home undergraduate students in much of the UK in 2025, which would likely send a good number of universities bankrupt. For another, there are simply not enough people in the British armed forces to cope with nearly a million people every year. How would that even work?
He must know that he is talking proper bollocks now, which must mean he is resigned to fail.
Sir Keir is countering this by giving all 16 year old children the vote.
Well I suppose the good news is that if Sunak is talking about conscription of all 18 year olds starting in 2025, he must know that this is nonsense for a range of reasons; including (declaring self-interest) there would be almost nobody in the cohort of new home undergraduate students in much of the UK in 2025, which would likely send a good number of universities bankrupt. For another, there are simply not enough people in the British armed forces to cope with nearly a million people every year. How would that even work?
He must know that he is talking proper bollocks now, which must mean he is resigned to fail.
Yes, quite - and I wonder if it might backfire spectacularly, exposing the lack of investment in the regular army and infuriating the well-off middle class parents and grandparents who don’t want to see their wee Jane or Johnny spend a year in the army, when they should be at Uni.
I know there is the alternative ‘plan’ to force young people to give compulsory voluntary service at weekends, but, for goodness sake, that kind of community service is currently a judicial alternative to a prison sentence for certain crimes. Ironically, the 18 year old vote, normally under-represented, should also be massively mobilised now…
Comments
Officially - it would be fascinating to see whether, in the event that an oath to the Crown was abolished, SF actually then took their seats to legislate in the British parliament. Part of me suspects they’re hardline enough that the goalposts would then move to still exclude it, but that’s just a hunch.
But then, I have a blind spot when it comes to symbolism. I don't get it and don't really rate it much. And, besides, this is a tangent.
Well, it's a way of indicating that you feel sufficiently strongly about a particular outcome that you want to express it in a particular way democratically and peacefully.
That's symbolic only in the sense that a lot of other things are that I suspect you wouldn't normally object to.
They take their seats at Stormont even though its powers are legally devolved from Westminster. The difference is they don't need to take the oath of allegiance, so that would seem to be indicative.
The thing is, I don't think there are any seats where this could happen. Sinn Fein have already got all the seats where it used to be an issue (like North Belfast). The closest are East Londonderry and Upper Bann where Unionist parties have 70% and 75% of the vote respectively so would have to be split 3 ways before SF would win. All the other Unionist seats have larger Unionist majorities. (Here's the Guardian constituency map for data)
I suspect most people who vote for the SF support the views of SF rather than doing so as a means of protesting some other disconnected issue, I don't think the fact that symbolic actions have non-symbolic consequences is in itself a bad thing, people protest various issues all the time - usually with the intention to change something.
(emphasis added to point 2.)
Not that I'm showing off or anything but:
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1794013320585818198
AFZ
Yes, quite a few tories stood down before the 1997 election. There was a piece in the Grauniad mentioning this, earlier today, but I can't find it at the moment.
IIRC, the number of tories standing down this time round is slightly higher than in 1997.
What Sinn Fein MPs won't do is turn up in Parliament to debate UK legislation which they believe should not apply in Northern Ireland, or vote on issues that they believe should not be enforced in Northern Ireland. And, they're voted into office by people who know exactly what their position is and that they won't be taking their seats in the Parliament of the occupying nation.
I think it will far exceed the '97 numbers.
This article covers the basics: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c844x1xp05xo - it has the total of Tory's not standing this time as 76 which is just a little out of date...
AFZ
I'm reading 81 elsewhere...
(But can't find a definite list)
FWIW, HoC library has a list of 71 but I think it's authorative but not contemporary.
Reform are having problems finding candidates, but I don't think anyone need shed any tears over that.
I would like Reform to have enough candidates.
The chances of them winning a few seats is low. And if they have say 50 candidates, (which they will) they can maximise that chance. If they have 650 candidates it doesn't increase their chance of winning a seat or two. It does however increase the chance of several Tories losing their seats.
In the long-term, the demise of Reform/UKIP/FarageForKing or whatever they decide to call themselves next, is vital but in the next few weeks, the damage they can do to the Tories is a public good. It's an almost beautiful irony.
They have an office in Our Town, in a disused shop (there are plenty of them to choose from). We had a UKIP MP for a year or so a while back, he having recklessly left his previous party...
AIUI, both Labour and the tories are having to scramble about in order to find enough candidates.
[/quote]
24/5....Labour 41 and Conservatioves 20
Labour 45
Conservatives 23
Where are your data from @Telford ?
Firstly, I think turnout is awful. I think it should always be 90% plus and I do believe in compulsory voting.
The data shows that the last time turnout was over 80% was the 1950s! The lowest turnout in recent elections was 2001 with 59.4%
All polling companies ask about likelihood of voting as it has proven vital for accuracy. It's one of the corrections they make to their raw data. If you look at the published data, it's always in there somewhere. Today YouGov on their Twitter feed have highlighted this: they are reporting that 58% of responders are 10/10 certain to vote. They have also put the graphs on that tweet by age which make interesting reading as well.
These data do not point to low turnout at all (by UK general election standards). From this I expect 70%+ turnout. That makes anything other than a Labour majority much less likely.
AFZ
Source for turnout data: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1050929/voter-turnout-in-the-uk/
YouGov: https://x.com/YouGov/status/1794256125250195807?t=S8KO_2bU0rrgRFQZvVFxuQ&s=19
But I the point is that it would be appropriate for people to declare their data sources if they are claiming to be reporting the state of the polls. Also: whether they are reporting UK or GB (excluding NI) data. Most trends are based on GB data. It makes a material difference.
Moreover, “random person on the internet” is not a data source per se, if you see what I mean.
- first that everybody loves them and
- second that nearly half the population agrees with and supports them.
That would only encourage them further in the spurious claim invented by Harold Wilson that 'we have a mandate', even worse if followed by 'see, it's in para 37(b)(iii) of our manifesto'.If it's a democratic freedom that people should be able to vote, it's equally a democratic freedom that they should be free not to.
If people don't vote, politicians should heed that fact. In stead of blaming the electorate, they should ask themselves, 'why?'
The two things I would say about the negative turnout figure is that,
I think the latter is important to avoid the kinds of situations Enoch lays out above, and may even spur politicians to form wider voting coalitions.
Well argued.
AIUI - and I'm sure I'll be corrected if wrong - Australia retains a "None of the above" option. I would also want to lose FPTP in favour of regional (~18-20 seat) constituencies. Which would change the landscape quite dramatically.
However, the issue of the non-voters is the self-fulfilling prophecy. "It makes no difference voting, so why bother?" These groups who consistently do not vote are therefore ignored by politicians and are then further disillusioned by the political process.
Anyway, all of that is a tangent (of my making!)
Received wisdom is that there will be low turnout. Low turnout favours the Tories. These data suggest that received wisdom is wrong. Having looked at the YouGov tables, turnout of 70-75% is what I expect.
AFZ
P.s. It seems to be a myth that 'change elections' correlate with higher turnout. '92 had a higher turnout than '97!!
I have some anecdotal evidence of young people who are mad keen to vote this time. If this proves to be more than talk, it is good news for Labour.
I am strongly in favour of some sort of PR voting. We could copy the Scottish model. I feel that, among other things, it would end the 'one-party states' in local government and ensure representation for all points of view in Parliament. I find myself, as usual, voting against what I dislike most rather than for what I really want. This necessity breeds cynicism and apathy. As does the related fact that I know, before I cast it, that my vote one way or the other means nothing in my constituency, which in the present circumstance must be 1000-1 on for Labour. At best, only one of two parties can win it, neither of which I really like, but one of which I despise with my soul.
I like the idea of the 'none of the above' option. If you had it, one wonders if it would win some seats!
Under PR I should probably vote Green or Volt UK.
Far better to have an official means of registering displeasure (or pressures build up in the system and then express themselves in unexpected and strange ways)
* I've heard the same story from a couple of people about a council election vote where the voter had gone through the list writing "total w****r", "complete w****r", "not as big a w*****r as the others", "w****r" against the candidates. At the count the returning officer in consultation with all the candidates and agents present assigned a first preference vote to the candidate described as "not as big a w****r", second preference to the simple "w****r" and then discarded the other votes being unable to decide which of "total" or "complete" was the lesser preference.
Yes, precisely. For understandable reasons the guidance from the EC errs on the side of trying to interpret a marked paper as a vote, in order not to disenfranchise people.
Which just underlines the need for a formal method of registering displeasure. For years, the UKs European Elections served as a free kick against the government (at least from the right) and I don't think the country was best served by that.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/25/record-10170-people-arrive-in-uk-via-small-boat-channel-crossings-this-year
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/25/thames-water-vomiting-bug-cryptosporidium
No wonder the poor man wants out...
I'm not so sure about that. If the Conservatives are totally wiped out there is a possibility they may be replaced as the main party of the Right by Reform or another insurgent party resembling Trump, LePen or AfD. I'd rather that didn't happen.
Especially as they've already had to remove 100+ candidates for making offensive (and often racist) remarks:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/24/reform-uk-forced-to-remove-more-than-100-general-election-candidates-in-2024
I’m not sure it would be entirely a change for the better. Certainly where I am in Cumbria I could see it losing any voice for the rural areas, and having representatives being responsible for covering an enormous area with their constituency offices being largely inaccessible for a considerable part of their electorate. It feels to me like one of those things (like issues of parental choice of schools) where the concept emerges from a predominantly urban/ suburban, densely populated context.
When I get time, I'm gonna do a thread on electoral reform. I think multi-seat constituencies would be really good as each of us would be represented by multiple MPs and therefore could write to several of them. I would set up the offices at Westminster so they had their offices grouped together. There is some good cross-party working when MPs share an interest. I think this is to be encouraged. Making MPs into delegations for i.e. Hampshire & The Isle of Wight could be very effective.
Anyways, that's enough for now, I will try not to perpetuate the tangent any further here.
AFZ
Ipsos and it's still the same. Based on the same data though .
Here is the IPSOS trends page which I presume is the source of the 41/20 figure you quote. The date given for those figures is “8-14 May 2024”, with shifts given from the previous month.
I don’t think IPSOS are updating daily. You can get the latest individual polls and trends at the BBC site or Wikipedia though.
As @BroJames says, regional constituencies with 18-20 MPs is far too remote.
Much simpler would be a bit of humility and adopt the Irish system more or less as it stands, with constituencies with 4-5 MPs elected by STV. That way, everyone is elected by somebody, and therefore represents somebody. The constituencies would be of broadly comparable equivalent size to some of the old county constituencies in the days of 40/- freeholders, though that was a system which in its details and in its time, nobody in their right mind could defend.
I'd also abolish multiple member wards elected by FPTP in local government. That produces even more distorted results than FPTP in single member constituencies in the Westminster monkey-house. Again, multimember wards with STV would be a lot better.
One, for the Scottish Parliament there's a mix of FPTP constituencies electing a single MSP to represent them, topped up by MSPs to improve proportionality who represent the regions they stand in. It's a system that works well, with people having a choice of calling on their constituency MSP or one (or more) of their regional MSPs (often both) when needing help.
Two, the system for the local elections with 3 or 4 member wards electing councillors by STV. A Parliament elected with 3 or 4 member constituencies elected by STV would maintain an approximately local representative (though, there would still be some geographically very large constituencies in parts of the country ... but there is already), with in most cases not too poor a mix of different types of area within each constituency (eg: one large town dominating an area that's largely rural).
He must know that he is talking proper bollocks now, which must mean he is resigned to fail.
Yes, quite - and I wonder if it might backfire spectacularly, exposing the lack of investment in the regular army and infuriating the well-off middle class parents and grandparents who don’t want to see their wee Jane or Johnny spend a year in the army, when they should be at Uni.
I know there is the alternative ‘plan’ to force young people to give compulsory voluntary service at weekends, but, for goodness sake, that kind of community service is currently a judicial alternative to a prison sentence for certain crimes. Ironically, the 18 year old vote, normally under-represented, should also be massively mobilised now…