General Election Pre-Thread (3 of 6)

[Podster]

Does anyone seriously believe that the tories are so neck and neck with labour that tactical voting is going to be needed to get them out, and please dont say,  " I am doing it just in case " or  "just to be safe"   IT'S ALREADY SAFE,

If massive amounts of people engage in tactical voting it gives a false impression of who the people want in power, if only a small amount of tactical voting takes place then it has no effect, so either way it's pointless.

However, if the tories were neck and neck (which they arn't ) then tactical voting may work if it is orchestrated exactly right, but it's just not needed, as we all know there are even tories that want the tories out, and to proove the point, there are 16 pages of comments here and everyone is anti tory.

Yes, the greens have got a lot of great plans, but it will take at least a couple generations  of global destruction of the planet before they have a chance to win an election.

I am 67 and this is the first time i am voting in a general election so I have no intention of wasting my vote. I want the tories out, but I want labour to have the power to be able to at least make an effective start to putting this mess right, and i dont want fringe parties , who got there because of tactical voting, making things difficult by wanting laws passed that everyone has to wear a tea pot on there head every third sunday in the month.

Up The Villa, :-}

 

 

Edited June 11 by Podster
added a few words

[Mandy Lifeboats]

9 hours ago, Jon said:

Do you think the lib dems wielded disproportionate influence over the tories during their coalition? 

Yes. Final answer. 

This is a great example. In 2010 approx 7 million people votes Lib Dem.  A proportion of those would not have done so if they knew it would lead to a Tory government.  

In reality,  Nick Clegg and a dozen senior LD people decided who would be Prime Minister.  Approx 12 Liberal Democrats put the Tories into power.  That's disproportionate influence. 

[limpid]

8 hours ago, Podster said:

Does anyone seriously believe that the tories are so neck and neck with labour that tactical voting is going to be needed to get them out, and please dont say,  " I am doing it just in case " or  "just to be safe"   IT'S ALREADY SAFE,

I remember when people voted leave because remain was a forgone conclusion and they just wanted to give the powers that be a bit of a kicking.

[chrisp65]

8 hours ago, Podster said:

Does anyone seriously believe that the tories are so neck and neck with labour that tactical voting is going to be needed to get them out, and please dont say,  " I am doing it just in case " or  "just to be safe"   IT'S ALREADY SAFE,

If massive amounts of people engage in tactical voting it gives a false impression of who the people want in power, if only a small amount of tactical voting takes place then it has no effect, so either way it's pointless.

However, if the tories were neck and neck (which they arn't ) then tactical voting may work if it is orchestrated exactly right, but it's just not needed, as we all know there are even tories that want the tories out, and to proove the point, there are 16 pages of comments here and everyone is anti tory.

Yes, the greens have got a lot of great plans, but it will take at least a couple generations  of global destruction of the planet before they have a chance to win an election.

I am 67 and this is the first time i am voting in a general election so I have no intention of wasting my vote. I want the tories out, but I want labour to have the power to be able to at least make an effective start to putting this mess right, and i dont want fringe parties , who got there because of tactical voting, making things difficult by wanting laws passed that everyone has to wear a tea pot on there head every third sunday in the month.

Up The Villa, :-}

 

 

the Labour bods knocking on my door tell me that it’s really really important for everyone to vote Labour purely to make sure the tory is out, regardless of anything else, if you think you are liberal, or green, or plaid it’s just vital to unite to get the tory out.

Its absolutely nailed on that this will be followed by 5 years of ‘we had a massive mandate from the people’. 

[bobzy]

16 minutes ago, limpid said:

I remember when people voted leave because remain was a forgone conclusion and they just wanted to give the powers that be a bit of a kicking.

That Trump/Brexit combo. 

[ml1dch]

13 hours ago, Davkaus said:

I'm not going to dig through pages of bolitics threads, no, so if you're claiming I'm full of shit and deny that people support FPTP because it subdues extremist parties, so be it. 

I wouldn't dream of phrasing it in such a confrontational manner. But you're right, it seems that there are more dangerous FPTPers, who need to be first up against the wall when Ed Davey storms to power than I thought.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

12 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

... there are more dangerous FPTPers, who need to be first up against the wall when Ed Davey storms to power than I thought.

1. I feel VERY safe. 

2. We voted. We rejected PR.  

[bickster]

2 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

We voted. We rejected PR.  

We didn't. We rejected AV which isnt PR

[Mandy Lifeboats]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

We didn't. We rejected AV which isnt PR

Correct. I worded that badly.  

But nearly 66% of the voters were happy to retain the current system rather than change. 

[bickster]

Just now, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Correct. I worded that badly.  

But nearly 66% of the voters were happy to retain the current system rather than change. 

No, 66% of the voters preferred one system to another. That is not an endorsement for the status quo it is a rejection of the alternative on offer.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

The only coalition government in recent UK history was the 2010 CONDEM alliance. 

It was so successful that at the following election the LD lost 4 million voters,  gained fewer votes than Nigel Farage's party and were no longer the third largest party. 

The public experienced coalition government and delivered a damning verdict. 

[CarryOnVilla]

I’m in favour of rank choice voting. 

bit complicated for some, but it makes my vote feel a bit more useful, particularly if I favour a minority candidate. If they don’t make the cut, but my second choice may just do. 

Edited June 12 by CarryOnVilla

[Mandy Lifeboats]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

No, 66% of the voters preferred one system to another. That is not an endorsement for the status quo it is a rejection of the alternative on offer.

Technically true,  but it's not how it's actually seen by the public when it comes to referendums.  The wording of referendums is never sufficient to allow true conclusions to be drawn.  They all boil down to voting for something new or staying as we are.  

 

 

[Davkaus]

14 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

The only coalition government in recent UK history was the 2010 CONDEM alliance. 

It was so successful that at the following election the LD lost 4 million voters,  gained fewer votes than Nigel Farage's party and were no longer the third largest party. 

The public experienced coalition government and delivered a damning verdict. 

I can't agree with your conclusion. Lib dem voters, mostly the young, felt absolutely betrayed by their party, especially on tuition fees and abandoned them for a generation over it.

You can't extrapolate that out to mean people hate any form of coalition and certainly not even further to mean that people wouldn't want a fairer electoral system.

[ml1dch]

Just now, Davkaus said:

I can't agree with your conclusion. Lib dem voters, mostly the young, felt absolutely betrayed by their party, especially on tuition fees and abandoned them for a generation over it.

You can't extrapolate that out to mean people hate any form of coalition and certainly not even further to mean that people wouldn't want a fairer electoral system.

I would also guess that with the benefit of hindsight, people might now look back and see the five years of coalition as pragmatic, sensible* Government given the nine years of bin-fire that has followed. 

*while obviously not wanting to make a claim that it was any good, obviously. Just pragmatic and sensible by comparison

[meregreen]

Gordon Brown actually offered PR without a referendum. The Lib Dems preferred to get into bed with the Tories, confident they could win a referendum. The Tories muddied the waters by offering a dogs dinner of a choice. Clegg messed up.

 

[choffer]

50 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

The public experienced coalition government and delivered a damning verdict of that particular coalition.

FTFY 

 

I've never understood how so many other countries almost always have coalitions but this country seems to fear the concept so much. 

[Davkaus]

10 minutes ago, choffer said:

FTFY 

 

I've never understood how so many other countries almost always have coalitions but this country seems to fear the concept so much. 

You don't understand, without fptp, we'd end up with weak, ineffective government, paralysed by infighting.

[choffer]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

You don't understand, without fptp, we'd end up with weak, ineffective government, paralysed by infighting.

I'd suggest it more important that we had politicians who were actually interested in making life better for their constituents rather than themselves. Politics is broken. It attracts the wrong kind on people (sweeping generalisation, I know). Until we fix that, everything is tinkering around the edges. 

Not that I think it's fixable.

[The Fun Factory]

They have nothing left. Nothing. The manifesto was a ragbag list of tax cuts, greenwashing and desperate appeals to reform voters. And now they think their best pitch is to vote for us to avoid a Labour government. Sunak is looking more and more clueless each day on the campaign trail, remember he managed to lose to Liz Truss in the leadership election to party members. He got the PM job by default and boy it is showing.