Jump to content

General Election: Match Thread


limpid

General Election 2024  

85 members have voted

  1. 1. Did you vote?


This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Just now, chrisp65 said:

I’d say there would be wild differences, but the range would be between dozens and low hundreds in the UK’s most motivated but least informed constituency (based on nothing but a feeling). I can’t believe this figure of hundreds of thousands of people stifled in their attempt to take part.

Turnout was 59.9%, having the old system would not have turned that in to 68%.

I’m not sure anyone has claimed that last bit.

The low turnout for me, is explained by the way FPTP was expertly gamed by both Labour and the LibDems with an added sprinkling of the Tories messaging about Labour landslide “no need to vote Labour are going to win anyway”.

ID will have had a small impact, the above will have been much bigger, huge swathes of urban safe seats were absolutely ignored as a deliberate tactic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bickster said:

I’m not sure anyone has claimed that last bit.

The low turnout for me, is explained by the way FPTP was expertly gamed by both Labour and the LibDems with an added sprinkling of the Tories messaging about Labour landslide “no need to vote Labour are going to win anyway”.

ID will have had a small impact, the above will have been much bigger, huge swathes of urban safe seats were absolutely ignored as a deliberate tactic.

 

I think the claim in one of the newspapers was something like half a million people were prevented from voting and this had been used up thread as a suggestion as to possibly why turnout was so low.

I think the low turnout was general disillusionment, it was a choice of a party that had clearly got to the end of its lifespan, a party offering ‘steady as she goes’, and a party offering paddle boarding gif’s. Plus of course, a cheeky character offering to sell you a new watch because the last one you bought off him turned out to be shit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way of knowing for certain but I don’t think the lack of ID benefited any party more than another. 

The young/wealthy/healthy are more likely to have passports and driving licences.  

The elderly/poor/disabled are more likely to have free bus passes and blue badges.  

Anyone who really wanted to vote had ample time to get a voters ID card or obtain a postal vote. 

The rules are exceptionally lenient.  Even an expired passport in a different name is acceptable IF you can show evidence that you have changed your name.  I accepted 2 passports in incorrect names combined with a recent marriage certificate. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

 

 

Don't know what his angle is but it's also blindingly obvious from that that the turnout was low in all the major urban centres with safe Labour seats. Look at Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

Don't know what his angle is but it's also blindingly obvious from that that the turnout was low in all the major urban centres with safe Labour seats. Look at Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, Sheffield...

 

Yeah, I don’t know that he’s got any angle, I had a quick look at his account before posting and he appeared quite bland.

 It would be pure speculation to presume it was safe seat apathy, or disillusion with the offer, or confusion over i.d. 

I know in my house, 3 votes went to a party people felt was less bad than the tory. Hardly a ringing endorsement that such a landslide suggests.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know just how Labour and in particular the LibDems were able to target their vote so effectively, as both parties only had a modest increase in the share of the vote but a net gain of 275 seats. Certainly Reform splitting the vote had a massive effect but I would be interested in what the parties do in squeezing their vote in the key seats.  I mean surely it is the obvious thing to do in the first past the post system they should be doing that at every general election.

Edited by The Fun Factory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Fun Factory said:

I would like to know just how Labour and in particular the LibDems were able to target their vote so effectively, as both parties only had a modest increase in the share of the vote but a net gain of 275 seats. Certainly Reform splitting the vote had a massive effect but I would be interested in what the parties do in squeezing their vote in the key seats.  I mean surely it is the obvious thing to do in the first past the post system they should be doing that at every general election.

The LibDems targeted every constituency with a Gail's bakery in

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@fightoffyour

You think I'm joking....

Quote

The Liberal Democrats managed to return a record number of MPs in the General Election by focusing their campaigning efforts on areas that had a Gail’s bakery.

...

According to reports in the Economist, strategists working for the party had one simple rule when it came to deciding where to deploy resources.

“Any town outside London with a Gail’s had activists hurled at it”, the newspaper reported.

London Economic

The tactic even had a name... Operation Cinnamon Bun

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never heard of that bakery chain, but it's menu looks quite pretentiously middle class while lacking any vegan options aimed at the Green party lot. This does seem like a good demographic for the lib dems

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â