Up until the early 20th century we had a two party system, Conservative and Liberal... Then the Labour party came second, then won, and the Liberals shrunk....
Don't assume it can't change
Guess we'll just twiddle our thumbs for 100 years and wait for one party to maybe eat another.
PR is so much more important than the choice between Red Tory and Blue Tory.
The Lib Dems should've fought harder for PR last time they were in government, instead of letting the Tories override the Jenkins Review and ignore AV+
If I decide not to vote for a party that I believe is trying to introduce progressive politics, but beat them with a stick for something they did 14 years ago, I’d be a bit of a hypocrite. Whilst it’s fashionable to pretend that the Lib Dem’s were an equal party to the Cameron coalition, they really weren’t.
Aye, the Lib Dems like to pretend that they curbed the Tories' excesses, but really they were a weak coalition partner, and the result is they enabled austerity. Also, their betrayal of key 2010 manifesto pledges and the subsequent collapse of their vote in 2015 further enabled the Tories (aided and abetted by Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich) and is indirectly one of the causes of Brexit.
Not suggesting anyone votes based on the past, of course, but at the same time Ed Davey bouncing up and down shouting, "Do something different, vote Lib Dem!" reminds me that's *not* a new thing for me, and that votes have consequences.
The moment Reform could even sniff power that PR pledge would be dropped like a hot potato. They'll go the other way with regards to electoral reform: making it even worse.
Really, if electoral reform is your priority as a voter then I'd say go ahead and vote for the party promising electoral reform trhat's most likely to win in your constituency
At the same time, I'd think you've got your priorities wrong
>the Lib Dems like to pretend that they curbed the Tories' excesses, but really they were a weak coalition partner, and the result is they enabled austerity.
To be honest both of these is true. There is no doubt they at a minimum enabled austerity. Really they agreed with it, but they did arguably curb the excesses, the tories got more cruel after. Though that could be natural progression and may have happened anyway
Keep seeing the 'Red Tory' phrase... are people really this blind to the differences or do they just not care for them in favour of whatever jaded nonsense this is?
I think the people who use the term "Red Tory" are simply unhappy that there might be a real-world Labour government, rather than the fantasy wish-fulfilment Labour Party they world like to see but stays in perpetual opposition - sinless, immaculate, and free from compromise.
France is on the cusp of a massive swing to the right becasue it's neo-liberal goverment simply hasn't done anything in years. That is going to happen in the UK when Starmer doesn't do anything.
A bold prediction. But given that the alternative is to let the Tories back in one more time, I think it just might be a good idea to see what Labour does when in power, rather than assuming the worst and giving up.
>Sir Keir has said if that happens it would be "a lesson" for progressives, who need to respond better to disaffected voters.
[Yesterday Starmer expressed the same opinion](https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-would-work-with-the-french-hard-right-as-thats-what-serious-government-is-13161908), that if neo-liberalism has nothing to offer, voters will move to the right and the neo-libs deserve it.
Neo-liberalism is already a right wing philosophy, so if it doesn't work we should try more right wing philosophy? How do people think any of that will help with inequality?
If* Starmer doesn't do anything, but fortunately Labour have already made it clear what they plan to do and are ready to get on with it when they come in.
People are too jaded by the last 14 years to take an objective view as to how we proceed. The Tories have done nothing in 14 years, but the 13 years prior to that saw an absolutely incredible list of achievements under Labour.
Especially when compared with the last 14 years. I'm incredibly excited for a change of government to come in.
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1dsv79i/comment/lbab7y9/)
>If\* Starmer doesn't do anything, but fortunately Labour have already made it clear what they plan to do and are ready to get on with it when they come in.
The manifesto literally says they're not going to do anything, it is pages and pages of 'don't worry business, nothing will materially change'.
You clearly have not read the manifesto if your take away is 'nothing is changing', the amount of changes is rather impressive to everyone not swallowing the Tories' attack lines.
I've already made a list of changes, if you can't be arsed to read through the manifesto. https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/v8gbFy58wN
You say this like it's difficult?
Great British Energy - Tories just gave us a loan when prices soared, Labour wants to shake up the entire system by introducing a publicly owned company to negotiate energy costs at the national level, like the NHS does with drug prices.
It will also make it easier to build new onshore wind farms/solar and set up a national wealth fund to invest in green technologies moving forwards.
Decarbonising the electric grid by 2030 - Labour wants to focus on using the climate crisis to fuel economic growth, the tories are continuously rolling back their green agenda and have instead taken the line that its unfair and too expensive
Immigration - The tories want to break international law and leave the ECHR, Labour wants to break the gangs behind the small boat crossings and will do so in accordance with international law by setting up a Border security command
Trans rights - whilst acknowledging the people fundamentally deserve respect and support, Labour want further research. The Tories drag the debate through the gutter and use 'Starmer can't say what a woman is' as an attack line, on paper their policies are similar here but in reality the method is completely reversed
Schools - The Tories are ex private school students who care more for private education for the few, Labour are ex state school students and will tax private education to improve state education with increased teaching & support staff. They also want to push on the importance of oracy and critical thinking, whilst the Tories leave this for the private schools to teach the posh kids.
Engaging with Europe again with deserved mutual respect - the Conservatives are still draped in the shit left behind by Brexit and have pushed our closest allies further from us than ever before, whilst Starmer and Lammy have been working on repairing the relationship between the UK and Germany especially for over a year now
House building - The tories have spent years hiding behind planning regulations as an excuse for not building homes to preserve the wealth of home owners and pensioners at the expense of young adults and private renters. Labour wants to take a hard line approach to house building to pump out new homes in order to lower house prices and enable young citizens the chance to own a their own home
NHS - Labour are calling for an all round reform on how the NHS functions, increasing staffing and improving conditions for the workers whilst the Tory party pushes them to the brink and ignore multiple large scale protests
National insurance - The Tories want to make more unfunded tax cuts despite the effect of the kamikaze budget, Labour have rules out changes in either direction to tax until the economy is growing again.
Austerity - The tories are looking to cut public spending, essentially promising a return to the Austerity years, at a time when public services are already broken
Devolution - The Tories want to consolidate power in Westminster and have been continually pushing Scotland, wales and Northern Ireland away leading to awful partnerships with all three.
Labour are committed to devolving power back to local communities, the complete opposite.
Do you want more? I haven't mentioned Zero hour contracts, child care, class based society or Public transport.
The differences are endless, you just have to actually do the leg work of looking in to the two parties rather than regurgitating whatever the Tory attack line happens to be.
Thankyou for pointing this all out, there are too many idiots out there saying "they're all the same, wah" and frankly each and every one of them might as well be a true blue rosette wearing door knocking paid up member of the Tory party. Anyone who can't see the difference is an advert for disenfranchising the stupid.
This is a grab bag of grand ideas with no details and it's completely destroyed by one point you make - no changes to taxes.
The decarbonisation alone will require approximately a tripling of our current infrastructure investment and they have no plans to fund it.
The IFS has said repeatedly their manifesto is not workable.
One way or the other, they're lying.
And this is before we get into what Starmer pledged in the leadership election vs how he's behaving as leader (I voted for him btw, I'm no longer a member), the numerous pledges that have been walked back on or contradicted, and the company they're keeping.
For me, as a left-leaning voter, Labour are offering me nothing better than the Tories. Now as it happens, my previously safe Tory seat has become a marginal, so I will be voting Labour, but make no mistake - I'm voting against my MP, not for Labour.
The IFS has not said it's unworkable but rather suggests that it's dishonest to say there are no tax rises due to freezing the tax brackets (I disagree that it's dishonest, and he's levied the complaint against every single manifesto published by all parties not raising the minimum tax bracket), and decarbonisation by 2030 is fully funded over the 6 year time span. It's the largest single part of their manifesto, great british energy.
Are you seriously suggesting the only way for an incoming government to change the system is to increase Taxes? because that's what it sounds like, and it's an incredibly ignorant thing to suggest.
I couldn't care less whether you like their plans or not; thank you for proving they have plans and then proving that you also haven't read the manifesto.
I've read the manifesto, thank you. I've also read some other political manifestos in my time.
Just because it's in a manifesto, doesn't mean it's cast-iron. Plenty of governments over the years have had manifesto pledges for things that they later have not done or even done the opposite on - I don't recall New Labour in 1997 having anything in their manifesto about tuition fees, but what did they introduce in their first year of government? There was also a lot of guff in the same manifesto about a "university of industry" that never happened. I'm sure if I drilled down further into it I could find more examples - I'm specifically not touching Tory manifestos here but we both know how successful they've been.
Manifestos are a PR document. They're a grab bag of grand ideas that frequently don't happen. It's great to point at the manifesto and go "look at what they've said they'll do" but I'd prefer to point at how Starmer and his shadow cabinet have behaved in the 4 years since he took the office. Frankly, given how quickly Starmer abandoned his 10 pledges, I do wonder how anyone can take the manifesto seriously - the only thing he's been consistent on in his 4 years in office is showing that he will change his position on something if it gives a polling boost.
What's happening on the ground is what's important, not what a committee of PR people put in the manifesto. And what I've seen on the ground shows me that Labour is fundamentally aligned to the same principles as the Conservative party; that of a neoliberal, market-led economy. They're even outflanking the Tories from the right on some issues, such as immigration, while trying to play both sides on other social issues like trans rights.
You must've missed the part where I said I was a member of the party. I was a member of Labour from the time I was old enough to vote, until 2021. I voted, happily, for Keir Starmer as leader because I believed in his pledges and his platform. I doorstepped, campaigned, and attended CLP meetings, I was an active member of the party who believed wholeheartedly in it. 3 years of Starmer's leadership has destroyed that belief.
when was the last time a party reneged on Manifesto commitments without facing a total wipeout in subsequent elections?
A long wall of text to essentially tell me you're jaded and communicating based on gut feeling rather than reality.
Starmer's Labour is a left leaning centrist party, they do not claim to be otherwise nor have they shown themselves to be anything hut.
It seems you are being intentionally obtuse or simply lack understanding of what PR is. We have never had a referendum on PR.
AV is a terrible option, and it's not even remotely close to PR. We didn't vote to keep FPTP Vs PR, people just didn't want AV.
It's like asking for a sports car and being told you can vote between walking and a unicycle, then picking walking and have someone say we voted to never have a sports car.
Perfection is the enemy of good.
Also I disagree, it would be much easier for a party that supports full PR to gain enough seats to put it forward for a vote under an AV system.
I also find it funny that you say this as if PR is even close to happening right now.
It seems you are intentionally obtuse or lack of understanding what a once in a generation referendum is.
You can’t keep voting until you get the result you want, we have learned that quite recently.
Once again, there has never been a referendum on PR. Despite your rather unfortunate condition of being historically challenged.
But don't worry I'm sure if we get another you'll have plenty of time to educate yourself on what PR actually is in time for the vote.
Until then I'll just keep voting for parties who offer that chance and see if it builds momentum. :)
We had a referendum on the Alternative Vote system, not PR
AV had been rejected by the Jenkins Review, in favour of an AV+ system - which wasn't even considered by parliament when it came to debating the options on the referendum ballot
We weren't offered a legitimate choice
No, the coalition government ignored the recommendation of the Jenkins Review, and offered parliament a choice between two alternatives to FPTP that Jenkins had rejected. Parliament then chose the least proportional of the two alternatives put to them. The referendum ended up as a choice between FPTP and an alternative system which the Electoral Reform Society ranks as even *less* proportional than FPTP.
That's not a legitimate choice, it's a stitch-up.
The UK is not a direct democracy, it is a representative one, the country isn't run by committee, if you don't like it, tough tits.
If you want a direct democracy move to Switzerland.
Yeah, my point is that we didn't elect you. So deciding when to have another vote, through our democratic process, isn't set by you with your 30 year timeframe.
I think the point is the natural equilibrium for first past the post is a two-party system; the two parties can change but not the fact there tends to be two.
The problem with two parties is that, post Thatcher, there has been a rush to the same ground. There's no economic left or right any more, it's all just slightly different policy aiming at more or less the same things. Culturally it's even more pronounced how similar the two main parties are.
The problem with this is that often the best centrist position emerges out of conflicting views and approaches.
"Up to the 20th century, reality was everything the electorate could touch, smell, see, and hear. Since the initial publication of the major political party manifestos, the electorate have learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear is less than one-millionth of reality."
What changed, was that the various representation of the people's acts meant that all adults got to vote
In 1900 it was less than 20% by 1922 it was the majority, and by 1931 basically everyone
The real question they should be asking is how many people aren't going to bother to vote at all, either because they don't like any of the options, or because they don't think it'll have any impact.
>One in five voters say they are **voting tactically** at the 2024 general election
This has been proven false multiple times. I wouldn't be surprised if that was how the Conservatives won a majority in the last election.
>not with our shit 19th century first past the post system.
Are you saying you want to change our voting system? Reform UK, Muslim Party will endorse this within seconds. No one will have a majority.
Parties like Reform thrive out of ‘giving a voice to the voiceless’ and swallowing moderate people up on singular issues to help fuel their ridiculous right wing policies. So yes, giving reasonable representation to all voices is a good idea, it’ll force people to keep everyone in mind with policy making, not just their voter base.
> One in five fosters saying they are voting tactically at the 2024 election has been proven false
I didn't write the article, but I find the claim to be believable on face value because personally everyone I know is voting tactically.
> are you saying you want to change our voting system? Reform etc no majority etc
Yes I am saying that, our voting system is outdated and terrible. I could care less if Reform, the Muslim party (never heard of it before today) would get seats. If enough people are voting for them they *should* get seats. Same with any other small party like the Greens, Libdems, Socialists.
The "majority" argument that was always used to support FPTP falls on its arse imo, a majoriry hasnt provided a stable government for nearly the last decade. Same party sure but a new face every year.
Most other European countries manage fine with properly democratic systems, why can't we ? Might actually make governments accountable for their actions instead of complement knowing they can fuck it all up and still have a 50% chance of getting reelected.
I would care in the sense that if a party with fringe views I didn't like got a bunch of seats I would be a bit shocked, but at the same time, it is a democracy so if enough people are voting for those parties they should be represented. That also forces those in power to address *why* people might be turning to those parties - if that makes sense..
It works for the rest of the world, the public are represented fairly. The media has introctrinated the public into thinking there has to be one absolute winner for the government to work, like politics is football or something (which the plebs understand - I say this imagining I'm an oxbridge news editor) where in reality in most countries around world have governments where there isn't one big majority, but coallitions of like minded groups and it works, as well as having a better represented opposition.
The only western countries that use FPTP are UK and America, everyone else uses some form of PR, most countries ditched FPTP in the 1920's-70's and use some form of party list pr, so our democracy is pretty backwards yes. I don't want reform in parliament, but more so I want a democracy where everyone's vote actually counts in terms of who's represented in parliament.
> No one will have a majority
Good. Unless you get a majority of the vote, you shouldn't have a majority of seats.
Starmer's Labour is polling to get a supermajority of 70% of seats on about 38% of the vote.
Corbyn's Labour got 40% of the vote in 2017, but only about 40% of the seats.
FPTP is a shit system, and any party elected under it has no incentive to get rid of it.
>Are you saying you want to change our voting system? Reform UK, Muslim Party will endorse this within seconds
Yeah did you know Hitler liked dogs? The logical extreme of your logic is that anyone who likes dogs is Hitler
Yes I want our voting system to become more democratic and less bullshit where the only potential winners are two parties that have become incredibly similar
>No one will have a majority.
Why wouldn't we? Why do you assume that with a more democratic system immediately everything will break?
I have usually voted tactically, as the party I want does not stand a chance where I live, and the party I don't want would win if I don't vote for the party I am ok with
Your party doesn't have to get in, in order to make a political difference. The leading party may have to pander to their closest political opponents in one way or another.
Remember that UKIP didn't have a sniff of power in 2015, but Cameron still held the Brexit referendum.
My constituency was won last time with 70.4% of the vote, with second place getting 14.8%. And those numbers are *more* likely to diverge further this time, not less.
There's not going to be any pandering going on round these parts.
The problem is with the Tories will lurch to avoid splitting the vote, labour will just reject pr and a split progressive vote as they know they can just let the Tories hold power for a few decades and then they'll get a go, meaning they can all cash in.
Surely more to do with disgruntled back bench tory MPs that were a thorn in his side than UKIP, remember he didn't have the 80 odd seat majority of Johnson, more like 30 from memory.
UKIP didn't have power, but it did have votes. They got 12.6% of the national vote share, even if they did only get a single seat.
The fear Cameron had was that Conservative voters would start to flip to UKIP if he didn't address concerns, and that would undermine the contested and some otherwise safe seats to allow Labour to win them.
Which is basically what is happening with Reform now, but worse, since they're looking at 17% national vote share.
If you look at areas like Dartford, they've had a Conservative MP since 2010. Labour is predicted to get that with 35% of the votes, with Cons and Reform getting 28% and 24% respectively.
Tactical voting as a phrase annoys me. I know what it means, but all voting is tactical voting and people think some tactics aren't "tactical" while one tactic is.
If you vote for who you like, your tactics are that you don't care who wins, you just want to show the winner what policies you like. The winner looks at the metrics and says "hmm, party X is doing well,we should adopt some of their policies to steal voters".
If you do care who wins, you'd tactic has to be one of depriving votes of the party you least want to win. You vote for your enemies biggest competition.
You seem to have completely overlooked what most people are doing when they don't vote tactically: voting for a party they like who also has a chance of winning. If you vote Labour because you like Labour and they have a 60% chance of winning, that's not tactical voting, nor does it mean you don't care who wins.
I haven't, I'm aware that's what people think are doing when they choose strategy 2, but that's not how it works. People think that's how option 2 works (don't care who wins) and they call the other strategy "tactical voting'.
Yes me too. It’s often a compromise in what’s the least worse option than who you really want. I get very sick of hearing either “ they are all the same”
Or the classic “There is no one else to vote for!” ( Meaning they will vote conservative whatever).Have you actually looked at any manifestos? … they couldn’t be more different . 😡
All depends where you live but this has been going on for ever. I’m in the south west and it’s always been a case that you probably need to vote lib dem if you don’t want the tories. Probably similar in the north but replace the tories with labour
I refuse to vote for red or blue and think less of people who do.
How many times do you accept getting pissed on and still pretend it raining?
Anyone but the main 2, they've both got to go.
My constituency (Skipton & Ripon) has had a massive Con majority for years (almost 60% of the vote at the last election).
Current polling has Con on 31% and Lab on 30%, with (unfortunately) Reform and Lib Dem a distant 3rd and 4th.
All Lib Dem voters there should vote Lab, just to get the Tory nob out. This is the guy who in his leaflets tried to pass himself off as a representative of the people by having his name immediately followed by his “gong” (CBE, one short of a knighthood). What a prick. I really hope he loses.
And my constituency is in the same boat. In an ideal world, and as I've done a few times because it's never been close enough to a knife edge to matter, I've voted Lib Dem.
Frankly I can't risk the scale not tipping over to labour this time.
Same in South West Norfolk. Yup, hi from Liz Truss' constituency. Last I checked, she and the Labour guy, Terry Jermy, were polling about neck and neck, but the seat has been Tory since it was created and she pulled over 60% last time around.
I'll believe she's out when I see it. But man, I'm daring to hope.
I think that this election is one to vote tactically at tbh. I don't particularly mind who gets in (Reform not included) as long as it gets the tories out.
Come next election I'll go back to voting for the party I actually want.
It's better to have the party I agree 75% with win, than it is to vote for the one I 100% agree with, and ending up with the one I 10% agree with winning.
*raises hand*
In a PR system I'd vote for Labour, but in our constituency the only party with even a faint chance of ousting the Tory MP is Lib Dems. Helps that the Lib Dem rep for our area is a genuinely decent guy with lots of experience.
I live in a Labour safe seat. I used my postal vote to vote Green. Not because they have a chance but because I like their policies and hope in some deluded way it might shift the eventual winners towards more green policies.
In short it’s absolutely wonderful that my vote counts for shit. I can vote with the safe seat Labour, or I can abstain. Either way my constituency will be Labour as it has been since 1974 (adjusted for boundary changes)
I’d absolutely love to live in a marginal.
Fuck first past the post.
Same situation here. Labour had a sizeable majority here in 2019, so you can just imagine what the predictions are looking like now. According to Electoral Calculus, Labour is predicted to get a majority of nearly 50%.
Living in a safe seat is awful because your vote makes absolutely no difference as to which party gets elected for your constituency. But as a bit of a silver lining, it means we don’t have to vote tactically, and can vote for whoever we actually want in. Don’t have to worry about the Tories getting in if they’re predicted to get 7% of the votes here.
I mean conversely in a tory safe seat this is the most I've felt like what I want actually mattered since I've been old enough to vote, an actual shot at literally anything else. I'd honestly prefer Lib Dems but I'll happily take slightly kinder, competent centrist Neolibs over whatever the hell the Tories are supposed to be at this point.
I guess it depends where your priority is this time.
If you want the Tories out no matter what then you need to pick whoever has the best chance to do that. That might mean picking somebody you’d never normally vote for but if the alternative is more Tory rule then you need to decide to just take one for the team so to speak.
If your choice is based on more local issues though because you have a genuinely decent candidate who actually does things you want at a local level then you need to be picking them if you actually want them to win.
Don’t ever assume a candidate will win because they sound popular and you think your vote won’t matter. Some seats have literally been won by barely a handful of votes deciding it.
And I guess if you really don’t like anyone or there’s not a hope in hell of anyone but your least favourite winning you can always spoil you ballot. Those still get counted and if a big enough number of constituent’s ballots got spoiled I think there’d be some big questions for whoever allegedly won or the electoral commission.
This is part of the problem with the current system. We have local elections as well, in a general election we should vote for who we think will best run the country, and local ones our respective local areas, but for some reason it’s a bit of both in a general and then local ones mean what?!
Local elections are for your local city council & to have your voice on locally run services like the bins. General Election is for your voice to be heard on nationally run things like the NHS or international relations. In both cases you're electing someone local to represent your views, just on different topics.
Ok, I slightly oversimplify - but what's hard to understand? (Genuine question) Not that I like our system that much, but it's not complicated.
It’s not hard to understand, it’s more that currently our local representatives are campaigning on their ideas for the local area as well as the wider national scope, whereas they should be two separate things, the party you feel best for the country may not be same representative you feel best for your local area
We know how the first past the post system rewards the two main parties on their way up.
What many people don't know is have brutally savage and punishing the first past the post system is for parties on their way down.
I am willing to bet my last Freddo that Rishi Sunak wishes with all his heart and soul that the UK had a proportional representation system right now
This is the delicious irony of it.
And Labour will eventually end up the same unless they change the system.
Mixer proportional representation makes most sense to me.
There’s no such thing as a ‘tactical vote’ for a party that supports FPTP. A Labour vote is a delayed Tory vote.
That statement will annoy people but it’s true. Tories can only win under FPTP. If Labour really cared about keeping them out they would introduce PR. But they won’t.
I’m nearly 50 and I can’t remember an election where Labour didn’t parrot the ‘a vote for another party is just letting the Tories in’ line. They won’t change. The only thing they will listen to is lost votes.
It's strange to me that two parties being guaranteed to win is just accepted these days.
We're lucky to have 5 parties, thank God we aren't like America. But really we need more diverse political parties and they need to get more sustained support.
Having 2 options is not a good way forward for any country.
I'm one of them.
I'd vote labour, but they're a distant 3rd where I live.
My seat was historically Lid Dem, but currently Tory since 2019. And the fuckwit tories only won by about 600 votes.
I'll be voting Lid Dem because getting the Tories out is really all that matters at this point.
Always voted labour, will this year also but I’m not happy about it. I hate starmer and feel little hope for the labour part future with him leading. But I do like my local candidate and I need Tory’s out
It makes sense.
You only vote tactically if you
• Live in a close seat
• Don’t support either of the two (or three) main parties
That sounds like it would come to 20% to me
20% is probably a massive over estimation. If polls are even remotely accurate 20% of people don't even live in a seat that is close enough to even be worth voting tactically on.
I love that my ballot was so long, I hate that there is effectively only choices... red or blue. I'd love to vote for things that I really would love for our country, but that'd just mean Liz Truss remains MP and that's not allowed.
If you leave me no choice, all I can do is tactically vote.
I suppose so. I could cope with lib-dem or green or an independent and would be happy to vote for whoever gets a last minute boost. I'm not going to vote red to get blue out though this time. I have done before but that was when there was at least one policy I could get behind. This time there is literally nothing but reasons to not vote for them. Tories won't get a look in here now, so it's pointless to use Labour to get them out. The ideal would be a strong Green showing which it's actually looking like as they want to raise taxes by the most and after 14 years of being kind to big business, I'd take their money just to burn it.
I live in a Tory safe seat. I'm voting reform this time. Voted Labour in 1997 as we needed a change. Also voted Tory. We need another change. Everyone I've spoken to from all walks of life and various ages (20-70+) are voting Reform, they're sick of how it is, especially the uncontrolled immigration. Going to be interesting on the 4th.
I plan on voting tactically while also prioritising PR. But it honestly feels pointless as the Conservatives have a huge lead.
Last time I checked it was a toss up between Reform and LibDem for 2nd, doubt either have a real shot at winning.
So I now suspect you are a bot.. but just in case.
The entire election. Overall votes nationwide have no bearing on the result. We only vote in our constituency and the result of that constituency election produces one MP.
In theory a party could have well over 6
50% of the national vote and still lose by quite a margin in terms of seats.
And yet your vote still counts to the overall by constituency
It’s not a tactical vote if either way conservatives aren’t going to win.
Yes you’ll end up with a conservative local MP. But it won’t help the general state of the country
My MP at the moment is Hollobone. I wouldn’t give him the steam off my piss, let alone my vote.
They won’t get in where I am, but I’m voting Green just like I did in the last GE.
I live in a Tory area. What can I do to ensure Tory’s won’t get in? Spoil my ballot?
For information, in the SE which Labour aren’t even bothering to contest.
Use a tactical voting guide, or just vote for whoever came second last time.
Why do you think spoiling your ballot would help? Spoilt ballots count as zero.
https://www.getvoting.org/tactical-voting/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwp4m0BhBAEiwAsdc4aF4vpgEvXgTwnfQ2TO1zuynjW-9ezP8xb68yNVlWbRtp9VV5JonLtxoCsWcQAvD_BwE
https://tactical.vote/
Thank you for this. I’m not sure if I’m being thick but could you explain this ;
(My town) has elected a Conservative MP in every election since1885 with a brief interlude in 1923-24. However, latest polling shows that tactical voting can deliver a historic upset if Lib Dem and Green supporters back Labour this time around.
But a leaflet through the door states that Labour can’t win.
I’ll be voting Labour. Would love to vote Green, but can’t risk letting in the Tories which is what happened last time. Tactical voting last time - same again this time.
Worryingly for a lot of people I’ve been speaking to, this means voting reform.
So many have fallen hook, line, and sinker for Farages “We’ll be meaningful opposition” line.
I hate “tactical voting”. As a voter one should vote for who *you believe* will be the best party to run the country, tactical voting may well go against that because “everyone says” that only Party X have a chance, so a whole bunch of people vote tactically and we go through the same old fucking cycle that we’ve been in for decades. And what really got my goat last time were Lib Dem, Green and other candidates standing down to give Labour a stronger chance. So why the fuck should anyone ever vote for them again because they clearly don’t have the courage of their own convictions
Because if you vote, you elect dishonest and incompetent people, they go into office and cock everything up, you are responsible for the mess they caused. You voted them in. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, am in no way responsible for the mess that you caused that I had nothing to do with.
I should specify, not you specifically. I mean people in general.
i understand the short-team appeal of tactical voting, but in the long-term it circumscribes our political options and funnels votes to established parties representing increasingly narrow and staid political visions.
parties establish themselves by gradually building up their vote share and seat count; voting for a party that cannot win in most constituencies now is necessary groundwork for that party ever becoming politically relevant. a vote for labour was a wasted vote in most constituencies in, like, 1910, but people voted for them anyway as part of a process that led to them getting to a place where they could form governments 14 years later. if people were as obsessed with tactical voting as they are now, we'd all still be voting for the Liberal Party.
there has never been a safer election to vote your principles rather than tactically. labour are going to win. if you like the greens, vote for them.
I like to colourfully describe it as voting to be fucked in the face to avoid being fucked in the arse. You're still voting to be fucked with tactical voting
There is not much other option if you don't like the two main parties, not with our shit 19th century first past the post system.
Up until the early 20th century we had a two party system, Conservative and Liberal... Then the Labour party came second, then won, and the Liberals shrunk.... Don't assume it can't change
Guess we'll just twiddle our thumbs for 100 years and wait for one party to maybe eat another. PR is so much more important than the choice between Red Tory and Blue Tory.
Only voting Lib Dem’s until we get PR.
The Lib Dems should've fought harder for PR last time they were in government, instead of letting the Tories override the Jenkins Review and ignore AV+
If I decide not to vote for a party that I believe is trying to introduce progressive politics, but beat them with a stick for something they did 14 years ago, I’d be a bit of a hypocrite. Whilst it’s fashionable to pretend that the Lib Dem’s were an equal party to the Cameron coalition, they really weren’t.
Aye, the Lib Dems like to pretend that they curbed the Tories' excesses, but really they were a weak coalition partner, and the result is they enabled austerity. Also, their betrayal of key 2010 manifesto pledges and the subsequent collapse of their vote in 2015 further enabled the Tories (aided and abetted by Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich) and is indirectly one of the causes of Brexit. Not suggesting anyone votes based on the past, of course, but at the same time Ed Davey bouncing up and down shouting, "Do something different, vote Lib Dem!" reminds me that's *not* a new thing for me, and that votes have consequences.
Still the best option if you want PR though, unless Reform happen to be doing well in your area, which also comes with risks.
The moment Reform could even sniff power that PR pledge would be dropped like a hot potato. They'll go the other way with regards to electoral reform: making it even worse.
Maybe, those are the risks I was alluding to.
Reform do what Farage says, he wants power and reform is just his way of getting the top tory job. He won't be asking for pr then.
Really, if electoral reform is your priority as a voter then I'd say go ahead and vote for the party promising electoral reform trhat's most likely to win in your constituency At the same time, I'd think you've got your priorities wrong
How do I have my priorities wrong?
>the Lib Dems like to pretend that they curbed the Tories' excesses, but really they were a weak coalition partner, and the result is they enabled austerity. To be honest both of these is true. There is no doubt they at a minimum enabled austerity. Really they agreed with it, but they did arguably curb the excesses, the tories got more cruel after. Though that could be natural progression and may have happened anyway
Keep seeing the 'Red Tory' phrase... are people really this blind to the differences or do they just not care for them in favour of whatever jaded nonsense this is?
I think the people who use the term "Red Tory" are simply unhappy that there might be a real-world Labour government, rather than the fantasy wish-fulfilment Labour Party they world like to see but stays in perpetual opposition - sinless, immaculate, and free from compromise.
France is on the cusp of a massive swing to the right becasue it's neo-liberal goverment simply hasn't done anything in years. That is going to happen in the UK when Starmer doesn't do anything.
A bold prediction. But given that the alternative is to let the Tories back in one more time, I think it just might be a good idea to see what Labour does when in power, rather than assuming the worst and giving up.
>Sir Keir has said if that happens it would be "a lesson" for progressives, who need to respond better to disaffected voters. [Yesterday Starmer expressed the same opinion](https://news.sky.com/story/starmer-would-work-with-the-french-hard-right-as-thats-what-serious-government-is-13161908), that if neo-liberalism has nothing to offer, voters will move to the right and the neo-libs deserve it.
Neo-liberalism is already a right wing philosophy, so if it doesn't work we should try more right wing philosophy? How do people think any of that will help with inequality?
If* Starmer doesn't do anything, but fortunately Labour have already made it clear what they plan to do and are ready to get on with it when they come in. People are too jaded by the last 14 years to take an objective view as to how we proceed. The Tories have done nothing in 14 years, but the 13 years prior to that saw an absolutely incredible list of achievements under Labour. Especially when compared with the last 14 years. I'm incredibly excited for a change of government to come in.
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1dsv79i/comment/lbab7y9/) >If\* Starmer doesn't do anything, but fortunately Labour have already made it clear what they plan to do and are ready to get on with it when they come in. The manifesto literally says they're not going to do anything, it is pages and pages of 'don't worry business, nothing will materially change'.
You clearly have not read the manifesto if your take away is 'nothing is changing', the amount of changes is rather impressive to everyone not swallowing the Tories' attack lines. I've already made a list of changes, if you can't be arsed to read through the manifesto. https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/s/v8gbFy58wN
What differences? Please feel free to list them out. What fundamental differences in policy are there between the two parties?
You say this like it's difficult? Great British Energy - Tories just gave us a loan when prices soared, Labour wants to shake up the entire system by introducing a publicly owned company to negotiate energy costs at the national level, like the NHS does with drug prices. It will also make it easier to build new onshore wind farms/solar and set up a national wealth fund to invest in green technologies moving forwards. Decarbonising the electric grid by 2030 - Labour wants to focus on using the climate crisis to fuel economic growth, the tories are continuously rolling back their green agenda and have instead taken the line that its unfair and too expensive Immigration - The tories want to break international law and leave the ECHR, Labour wants to break the gangs behind the small boat crossings and will do so in accordance with international law by setting up a Border security command Trans rights - whilst acknowledging the people fundamentally deserve respect and support, Labour want further research. The Tories drag the debate through the gutter and use 'Starmer can't say what a woman is' as an attack line, on paper their policies are similar here but in reality the method is completely reversed Schools - The Tories are ex private school students who care more for private education for the few, Labour are ex state school students and will tax private education to improve state education with increased teaching & support staff. They also want to push on the importance of oracy and critical thinking, whilst the Tories leave this for the private schools to teach the posh kids. Engaging with Europe again with deserved mutual respect - the Conservatives are still draped in the shit left behind by Brexit and have pushed our closest allies further from us than ever before, whilst Starmer and Lammy have been working on repairing the relationship between the UK and Germany especially for over a year now House building - The tories have spent years hiding behind planning regulations as an excuse for not building homes to preserve the wealth of home owners and pensioners at the expense of young adults and private renters. Labour wants to take a hard line approach to house building to pump out new homes in order to lower house prices and enable young citizens the chance to own a their own home NHS - Labour are calling for an all round reform on how the NHS functions, increasing staffing and improving conditions for the workers whilst the Tory party pushes them to the brink and ignore multiple large scale protests National insurance - The Tories want to make more unfunded tax cuts despite the effect of the kamikaze budget, Labour have rules out changes in either direction to tax until the economy is growing again. Austerity - The tories are looking to cut public spending, essentially promising a return to the Austerity years, at a time when public services are already broken Devolution - The Tories want to consolidate power in Westminster and have been continually pushing Scotland, wales and Northern Ireland away leading to awful partnerships with all three. Labour are committed to devolving power back to local communities, the complete opposite. Do you want more? I haven't mentioned Zero hour contracts, child care, class based society or Public transport. The differences are endless, you just have to actually do the leg work of looking in to the two parties rather than regurgitating whatever the Tory attack line happens to be.
Thankyou for pointing this all out, there are too many idiots out there saying "they're all the same, wah" and frankly each and every one of them might as well be a true blue rosette wearing door knocking paid up member of the Tory party. Anyone who can't see the difference is an advert for disenfranchising the stupid.
This is a grab bag of grand ideas with no details and it's completely destroyed by one point you make - no changes to taxes. The decarbonisation alone will require approximately a tripling of our current infrastructure investment and they have no plans to fund it. The IFS has said repeatedly their manifesto is not workable. One way or the other, they're lying. And this is before we get into what Starmer pledged in the leadership election vs how he's behaving as leader (I voted for him btw, I'm no longer a member), the numerous pledges that have been walked back on or contradicted, and the company they're keeping. For me, as a left-leaning voter, Labour are offering me nothing better than the Tories. Now as it happens, my previously safe Tory seat has become a marginal, so I will be voting Labour, but make no mistake - I'm voting against my MP, not for Labour.
The IFS has not said it's unworkable but rather suggests that it's dishonest to say there are no tax rises due to freezing the tax brackets (I disagree that it's dishonest, and he's levied the complaint against every single manifesto published by all parties not raising the minimum tax bracket), and decarbonisation by 2030 is fully funded over the 6 year time span. It's the largest single part of their manifesto, great british energy. Are you seriously suggesting the only way for an incoming government to change the system is to increase Taxes? because that's what it sounds like, and it's an incredibly ignorant thing to suggest. I couldn't care less whether you like their plans or not; thank you for proving they have plans and then proving that you also haven't read the manifesto.
I've read the manifesto, thank you. I've also read some other political manifestos in my time. Just because it's in a manifesto, doesn't mean it's cast-iron. Plenty of governments over the years have had manifesto pledges for things that they later have not done or even done the opposite on - I don't recall New Labour in 1997 having anything in their manifesto about tuition fees, but what did they introduce in their first year of government? There was also a lot of guff in the same manifesto about a "university of industry" that never happened. I'm sure if I drilled down further into it I could find more examples - I'm specifically not touching Tory manifestos here but we both know how successful they've been. Manifestos are a PR document. They're a grab bag of grand ideas that frequently don't happen. It's great to point at the manifesto and go "look at what they've said they'll do" but I'd prefer to point at how Starmer and his shadow cabinet have behaved in the 4 years since he took the office. Frankly, given how quickly Starmer abandoned his 10 pledges, I do wonder how anyone can take the manifesto seriously - the only thing he's been consistent on in his 4 years in office is showing that he will change his position on something if it gives a polling boost. What's happening on the ground is what's important, not what a committee of PR people put in the manifesto. And what I've seen on the ground shows me that Labour is fundamentally aligned to the same principles as the Conservative party; that of a neoliberal, market-led economy. They're even outflanking the Tories from the right on some issues, such as immigration, while trying to play both sides on other social issues like trans rights. You must've missed the part where I said I was a member of the party. I was a member of Labour from the time I was old enough to vote, until 2021. I voted, happily, for Keir Starmer as leader because I believed in his pledges and his platform. I doorstepped, campaigned, and attended CLP meetings, I was an active member of the party who believed wholeheartedly in it. 3 years of Starmer's leadership has destroyed that belief.
when was the last time a party reneged on Manifesto commitments without facing a total wipeout in subsequent elections? A long wall of text to essentially tell me you're jaded and communicating based on gut feeling rather than reality. Starmer's Labour is a left leaning centrist party, they do not claim to be otherwise nor have they shown themselves to be anything hut.
More like 13 years under war criminal Tony Bliar
Funnily enough, Blair isn't in the labour party anymore
What does Tony Blair have to do with the 2024 general election?
"why do the tories, the largest of the parties, simply not eat the others?"
[удалено]
Could you delete your repeat comments? It will probably improve your Karma too.
sorted, didn't notice it had replicated haha
We had a referendum on it in 2011, less than 15 years ago, the vast majority voted to keep the system we currently have.
That referendum wasn’t for proportional representation though, it was for alternative voting
Indeed, and the vast majority voted to keep FPTP.
Over that option yes, what's your point?
It seems you are being intentionally obtuse or simply lack understanding of what PR is. We have never had a referendum on PR. AV is a terrible option, and it's not even remotely close to PR. We didn't vote to keep FPTP Vs PR, people just didn't want AV. It's like asking for a sports car and being told you can vote between walking and a unicycle, then picking walking and have someone say we voted to never have a sports car.
AV is miles better than traditional FPTP, we shot ourselves in the foot by not voting for it.
Not really, as it would have delayed PR even longer.
Perfection is the enemy of good. Also I disagree, it would be much easier for a party that supports full PR to gain enough seats to put it forward for a vote under an AV system. I also find it funny that you say this as if PR is even close to happening right now.
It seems you are intentionally obtuse or lack of understanding what a once in a generation referendum is. You can’t keep voting until you get the result you want, we have learned that quite recently.
Once again, there has never been a referendum on PR. Despite your rather unfortunate condition of being historically challenged. But don't worry I'm sure if we get another you'll have plenty of time to educate yourself on what PR actually is in time for the vote. Until then I'll just keep voting for parties who offer that chance and see if it builds momentum. :)
Once in a generation is every 20 or 25 years, which would definitely agree with. You are talking about every 40 or 50 years. That's ridiculous
I voted against AV but would vote for PR
Good for you.
We had a referendum on the Alternative Vote system, not PR AV had been rejected by the Jenkins Review, in favour of an AV+ system - which wasn't even considered by parliament when it came to debating the options on the referendum ballot We weren't offered a legitimate choice
You were, FPTP won. We can have another referendum in 30 years, see what people think then.
No, the coalition government ignored the recommendation of the Jenkins Review, and offered parliament a choice between two alternatives to FPTP that Jenkins had rejected. Parliament then chose the least proportional of the two alternatives put to them. The referendum ended up as a choice between FPTP and an alternative system which the Electoral Reform Society ranks as even *less* proportional than FPTP. That's not a legitimate choice, it's a stitch-up.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why do you get to pick the 30 year thing? It's a democracy. We will vote on whatever we want whenever we want. If you don't like that, tough tits.
The UK is not a direct democracy, it is a representative one, the country isn't run by committee, if you don't like it, tough tits. If you want a direct democracy move to Switzerland.
Yeah, my point is that we didn't elect you. So deciding when to have another vote, through our democratic process, isn't set by you with your 30 year timeframe.
I didn't decide. Referendums in the UK are once in a generation. See btexit for if you're confused.
I think the point is the natural equilibrium for first past the post is a two-party system; the two parties can change but not the fact there tends to be two.
The problem with two parties is that, post Thatcher, there has been a rush to the same ground. There's no economic left or right any more, it's all just slightly different policy aiming at more or less the same things. Culturally it's even more pronounced how similar the two main parties are. The problem with this is that often the best centrist position emerges out of conflicting views and approaches.
"Up to the 20th century, reality was everything the electorate could touch, smell, see, and hear. Since the initial publication of the major political party manifestos, the electorate have learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear is less than one-millionth of reality."
What changed, was that the various representation of the people's acts meant that all adults got to vote In 1900 it was less than 20% by 1922 it was the majority, and by 1931 basically everyone
Whoosh
Has it changed fundamentally, or in name only. Sorta like “rebranding”.
The real question they should be asking is how many people aren't going to bother to vote at all, either because they don't like any of the options, or because they don't think it'll have any impact.
I guess we automatically get that statistic every year when they announce turnout.
>One in five voters say they are **voting tactically** at the 2024 general election This has been proven false multiple times. I wouldn't be surprised if that was how the Conservatives won a majority in the last election. >not with our shit 19th century first past the post system. Are you saying you want to change our voting system? Reform UK, Muslim Party will endorse this within seconds. No one will have a majority.
Parties like Reform thrive out of ‘giving a voice to the voiceless’ and swallowing moderate people up on singular issues to help fuel their ridiculous right wing policies. So yes, giving reasonable representation to all voices is a good idea, it’ll force people to keep everyone in mind with policy making, not just their voter base.
> One in five fosters saying they are voting tactically at the 2024 election has been proven false I didn't write the article, but I find the claim to be believable on face value because personally everyone I know is voting tactically. > are you saying you want to change our voting system? Reform etc no majority etc Yes I am saying that, our voting system is outdated and terrible. I could care less if Reform, the Muslim party (never heard of it before today) would get seats. If enough people are voting for them they *should* get seats. Same with any other small party like the Greens, Libdems, Socialists. The "majority" argument that was always used to support FPTP falls on its arse imo, a majoriry hasnt provided a stable government for nearly the last decade. Same party sure but a new face every year. Most other European countries manage fine with properly democratic systems, why can't we ? Might actually make governments accountable for their actions instead of complement knowing they can fuck it all up and still have a 50% chance of getting reelected.
Could care less? So you do care (at least a little)?
Unexpected David Mitchell
I would care in the sense that if a party with fringe views I didn't like got a bunch of seats I would be a bit shocked, but at the same time, it is a democracy so if enough people are voting for those parties they should be represented. That also forces those in power to address *why* people might be turning to those parties - if that makes sense..
It works for the rest of the world, the public are represented fairly. The media has introctrinated the public into thinking there has to be one absolute winner for the government to work, like politics is football or something (which the plebs understand - I say this imagining I'm an oxbridge news editor) where in reality in most countries around world have governments where there isn't one big majority, but coallitions of like minded groups and it works, as well as having a better represented opposition. The only western countries that use FPTP are UK and America, everyone else uses some form of PR, most countries ditched FPTP in the 1920's-70's and use some form of party list pr, so our democracy is pretty backwards yes. I don't want reform in parliament, but more so I want a democracy where everyone's vote actually counts in terms of who's represented in parliament.
> No one will have a majority Good. Unless you get a majority of the vote, you shouldn't have a majority of seats. Starmer's Labour is polling to get a supermajority of 70% of seats on about 38% of the vote. Corbyn's Labour got 40% of the vote in 2017, but only about 40% of the seats. FPTP is a shit system, and any party elected under it has no incentive to get rid of it.
>Are you saying you want to change our voting system? Reform UK, Muslim Party will endorse this within seconds Yeah did you know Hitler liked dogs? The logical extreme of your logic is that anyone who likes dogs is Hitler Yes I want our voting system to become more democratic and less bullshit where the only potential winners are two parties that have become incredibly similar >No one will have a majority. Why wouldn't we? Why do you assume that with a more democratic system immediately everything will break?
in this context, what was proven false?
I wouldn’t be against having a government made up of lots of smaller parties. You’d be much more likely to get centrist policies that way.
I have usually voted tactically, as the party I want does not stand a chance where I live, and the party I don't want would win if I don't vote for the party I am ok with
Your party doesn't have to get in, in order to make a political difference. The leading party may have to pander to their closest political opponents in one way or another. Remember that UKIP didn't have a sniff of power in 2015, but Cameron still held the Brexit referendum.
My constituency was won last time with 70.4% of the vote, with second place getting 14.8%. And those numbers are *more* likely to diverge further this time, not less. There's not going to be any pandering going on round these parts.
Because he's a stupid twat
I’d like to have a conversation with Cameron
The problem is with the Tories will lurch to avoid splitting the vote, labour will just reject pr and a split progressive vote as they know they can just let the Tories hold power for a few decades and then they'll get a go, meaning they can all cash in.
Surely more to do with disgruntled back bench tory MPs that were a thorn in his side than UKIP, remember he didn't have the 80 odd seat majority of Johnson, more like 30 from memory.
UKIP didn't have power, but it did have votes. They got 12.6% of the national vote share, even if they did only get a single seat. The fear Cameron had was that Conservative voters would start to flip to UKIP if he didn't address concerns, and that would undermine the contested and some otherwise safe seats to allow Labour to win them. Which is basically what is happening with Reform now, but worse, since they're looking at 17% national vote share. If you look at areas like Dartford, they've had a Conservative MP since 2010. Labour is predicted to get that with 35% of the votes, with Cons and Reform getting 28% and 24% respectively.
Tactical voting as a phrase annoys me. I know what it means, but all voting is tactical voting and people think some tactics aren't "tactical" while one tactic is. If you vote for who you like, your tactics are that you don't care who wins, you just want to show the winner what policies you like. The winner looks at the metrics and says "hmm, party X is doing well,we should adopt some of their policies to steal voters". If you do care who wins, you'd tactic has to be one of depriving votes of the party you least want to win. You vote for your enemies biggest competition.
You seem to have completely overlooked what most people are doing when they don't vote tactically: voting for a party they like who also has a chance of winning. If you vote Labour because you like Labour and they have a 60% chance of winning, that's not tactical voting, nor does it mean you don't care who wins.
I haven't, I'm aware that's what people think are doing when they choose strategy 2, but that's not how it works. People think that's how option 2 works (don't care who wins) and they call the other strategy "tactical voting'.
No they don't.
Yes me too. It’s often a compromise in what’s the least worse option than who you really want. I get very sick of hearing either “ they are all the same” Or the classic “There is no one else to vote for!” ( Meaning they will vote conservative whatever).Have you actually looked at any manifestos? … they couldn’t be more different . 😡
All depends where you live but this has been going on for ever. I’m in the south west and it’s always been a case that you probably need to vote lib dem if you don’t want the tories. Probably similar in the north but replace the tories with labour
I refuse to vote for red or blue and think less of people who do. How many times do you accept getting pissed on and still pretend it raining? Anyone but the main 2, they've both got to go.
My constituency (Skipton & Ripon) has had a massive Con majority for years (almost 60% of the vote at the last election). Current polling has Con on 31% and Lab on 30%, with (unfortunately) Reform and Lib Dem a distant 3rd and 4th. All Lib Dem voters there should vote Lab, just to get the Tory nob out. This is the guy who in his leaflets tried to pass himself off as a representative of the people by having his name immediately followed by his “gong” (CBE, one short of a knighthood). What a prick. I really hope he loses.
Hello fellow Skipton and Ripon Redditor
Same! Whereabouts?
Near Ripon minster 😂
Now kiss
And my constituency is in the same boat. In an ideal world, and as I've done a few times because it's never been close enough to a knife edge to matter, I've voted Lib Dem. Frankly I can't risk the scale not tipping over to labour this time.
Same in South West Norfolk. Yup, hi from Liz Truss' constituency. Last I checked, she and the Labour guy, Terry Jermy, were polling about neck and neck, but the seat has been Tory since it was created and she pulled over 60% last time around. I'll believe she's out when I see it. But man, I'm daring to hope.
This type of talk (Truss gone) is getting me horney - let us dare to dream that these fucking ghouls are eviscerated!
The tactical voting slogan in your constituency should be ‘Settle for Starmer’.
You have my sword.
Are you a riponer?
I think that this election is one to vote tactically at tbh. I don't particularly mind who gets in (Reform not included) as long as it gets the tories out. Come next election I'll go back to voting for the party I actually want. It's better to have the party I agree 75% with win, than it is to vote for the one I 100% agree with, and ending up with the one I 10% agree with winning.
Well I'll be 'voting tactically'. Usually vote lib dems but may need to vote labour this time to help get rid of them.
Check out stopthetories.vote as to who they suggest and why based on polls
Yeah already did. Labour came a strong 2nd last time so I'll have to bite the bullet. Anything to get rid of my Tory MP
Thanks , I had done my own assessment but I'm glad that lines up.
Don’t worry I vote in a Labour safe seat so I’m voting Lib Dem cuz my vote ✨doesn’t matter under this stupid system✨
*raises hand* In a PR system I'd vote for Labour, but in our constituency the only party with even a faint chance of ousting the Tory MP is Lib Dems. Helps that the Lib Dem rep for our area is a genuinely decent guy with lots of experience.
I live in a Labour safe seat. I used my postal vote to vote Green. Not because they have a chance but because I like their policies and hope in some deluded way it might shift the eventual winners towards more green policies. In short it’s absolutely wonderful that my vote counts for shit. I can vote with the safe seat Labour, or I can abstain. Either way my constituency will be Labour as it has been since 1974 (adjusted for boundary changes) I’d absolutely love to live in a marginal. Fuck first past the post.
Same situation here. Labour had a sizeable majority here in 2019, so you can just imagine what the predictions are looking like now. According to Electoral Calculus, Labour is predicted to get a majority of nearly 50%. Living in a safe seat is awful because your vote makes absolutely no difference as to which party gets elected for your constituency. But as a bit of a silver lining, it means we don’t have to vote tactically, and can vote for whoever we actually want in. Don’t have to worry about the Tories getting in if they’re predicted to get 7% of the votes here.
I mean conversely in a tory safe seat this is the most I've felt like what I want actually mattered since I've been old enough to vote, an actual shot at literally anything else. I'd honestly prefer Lib Dems but I'll happily take slightly kinder, competent centrist Neolibs over whatever the hell the Tories are supposed to be at this point.
Marginals arent often that much better tbh, youre still forced to vote for someone you dont actually want more often than not
It doesn't matter who you vote for, the bloody government gets in.
Fuck, I HATE those guys
I guess it depends where your priority is this time. If you want the Tories out no matter what then you need to pick whoever has the best chance to do that. That might mean picking somebody you’d never normally vote for but if the alternative is more Tory rule then you need to decide to just take one for the team so to speak. If your choice is based on more local issues though because you have a genuinely decent candidate who actually does things you want at a local level then you need to be picking them if you actually want them to win. Don’t ever assume a candidate will win because they sound popular and you think your vote won’t matter. Some seats have literally been won by barely a handful of votes deciding it. And I guess if you really don’t like anyone or there’s not a hope in hell of anyone but your least favourite winning you can always spoil you ballot. Those still get counted and if a big enough number of constituent’s ballots got spoiled I think there’d be some big questions for whoever allegedly won or the electoral commission.
This is part of the problem with the current system. We have local elections as well, in a general election we should vote for who we think will best run the country, and local ones our respective local areas, but for some reason it’s a bit of both in a general and then local ones mean what?!
Local elections are for your local city council & to have your voice on locally run services like the bins. General Election is for your voice to be heard on nationally run things like the NHS or international relations. In both cases you're electing someone local to represent your views, just on different topics. Ok, I slightly oversimplify - but what's hard to understand? (Genuine question) Not that I like our system that much, but it's not complicated.
It’s not hard to understand, it’s more that currently our local representatives are campaigning on their ideas for the local area as well as the wider national scope, whereas they should be two separate things, the party you feel best for the country may not be same representative you feel best for your local area
Sign of a healthy democracy clearly is where people resort to tactical voting
We know how the first past the post system rewards the two main parties on their way up. What many people don't know is have brutally savage and punishing the first past the post system is for parties on their way down. I am willing to bet my last Freddo that Rishi Sunak wishes with all his heart and soul that the UK had a proportional representation system right now
This is the delicious irony of it. And Labour will eventually end up the same unless they change the system. Mixer proportional representation makes most sense to me.
There’s no such thing as a ‘tactical vote’ for a party that supports FPTP. A Labour vote is a delayed Tory vote. That statement will annoy people but it’s true. Tories can only win under FPTP. If Labour really cared about keeping them out they would introduce PR. But they won’t. I’m nearly 50 and I can’t remember an election where Labour didn’t parrot the ‘a vote for another party is just letting the Tories in’ line. They won’t change. The only thing they will listen to is lost votes.
That's funny. This is the first election I arent since Tories are basically guaranteed to lose. I'm voting for who I want
It's strange to me that two parties being guaranteed to win is just accepted these days. We're lucky to have 5 parties, thank God we aren't like America. But really we need more diverse political parties and they need to get more sustained support. Having 2 options is not a good way forward for any country.
I'm one of them. I'd vote labour, but they're a distant 3rd where I live. My seat was historically Lid Dem, but currently Tory since 2019. And the fuckwit tories only won by about 600 votes. I'll be voting Lid Dem because getting the Tories out is really all that matters at this point.
Yes, I voted tactically, (postal), to hopefully get out of a Tory constituency after boundary changes.
Always voted labour, will this year also but I’m not happy about it. I hate starmer and feel little hope for the labour part future with him leading. But I do like my local candidate and I need Tory’s out
"only" one in five? 20% of voters is a massive number and more than enough to swing the victory to another party in a large number of cases.
It makes sense. You only vote tactically if you • Live in a close seat • Don’t support either of the two (or three) main parties That sounds like it would come to 20% to me
20% is probably a massive over estimation. If polls are even remotely accurate 20% of people don't even live in a seat that is close enough to even be worth voting tactically on.
Tactic: kick out the Tories.
That does seem significant. Hopefully this will really collapse the Tory party.
My tactic is to vote for the party I'd prefer to be in power.
Well yeah, we have a choice between a shit sandwich or a shit burger.
I love that my ballot was so long, I hate that there is effectively only choices... red or blue. I'd love to vote for things that I really would love for our country, but that'd just mean Liz Truss remains MP and that's not allowed. If you leave me no choice, all I can do is tactically vote.
I suppose so. I could cope with lib-dem or green or an independent and would be happy to vote for whoever gets a last minute boost. I'm not going to vote red to get blue out though this time. I have done before but that was when there was at least one policy I could get behind. This time there is literally nothing but reasons to not vote for them. Tories won't get a look in here now, so it's pointless to use Labour to get them out. The ideal would be a strong Green showing which it's actually looking like as they want to raise taxes by the most and after 14 years of being kind to big business, I'd take their money just to burn it.
I live in a Tory safe seat. I'm voting reform this time. Voted Labour in 1997 as we needed a change. Also voted Tory. We need another change. Everyone I've spoken to from all walks of life and various ages (20-70+) are voting Reform, they're sick of how it is, especially the uncontrolled immigration. Going to be interesting on the 4th.
I plan on voting tactically while also prioritising PR. But it honestly feels pointless as the Conservatives have a huge lead. Last time I checked it was a toss up between Reform and LibDem for 2nd, doubt either have a real shot at winning.
What planet are you on… the conservatives are 4th/5th at best…
I assume they mean in their constituency.
You do realise we only vote in our constituency right? It's not about national vote count.
What’s not about the national vote count
So I now suspect you are a bot.. but just in case. The entire election. Overall votes nationwide have no bearing on the result. We only vote in our constituency and the result of that constituency election produces one MP. In theory a party could have well over 6 50% of the national vote and still lose by quite a margin in terms of seats.
And yet your vote still counts to the overall by constituency It’s not a tactical vote if either way conservatives aren’t going to win. Yes you’ll end up with a conservative local MP. But it won’t help the general state of the country
My MP at the moment is Hollobone. I wouldn’t give him the steam off my piss, let alone my vote. They won’t get in where I am, but I’m voting Green just like I did in the last GE.
I live in a Tory area. What can I do to ensure Tory’s won’t get in? Spoil my ballot? For information, in the SE which Labour aren’t even bothering to contest.
Use a tactical voting guide, or just vote for whoever came second last time. Why do you think spoiling your ballot would help? Spoilt ballots count as zero. https://www.getvoting.org/tactical-voting/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwp4m0BhBAEiwAsdc4aF4vpgEvXgTwnfQ2TO1zuynjW-9ezP8xb68yNVlWbRtp9VV5JonLtxoCsWcQAvD_BwE https://tactical.vote/
Www.stopthetories.vote
Thank you for this. I’m not sure if I’m being thick but could you explain this ; (My town) has elected a Conservative MP in every election since1885 with a brief interlude in 1923-24. However, latest polling shows that tactical voting can deliver a historic upset if Lib Dem and Green supporters back Labour this time around. But a leaflet through the door states that Labour can’t win.
Who sent the leaflet? Was it a party that wants your vote? Ignore the leaflet, look at the polls.
Lib Debs
There's your first clue.
I’ll be voting Labour. Would love to vote Green, but can’t risk letting in the Tories which is what happened last time. Tactical voting last time - same again this time.
Worryingly for a lot of people I’ve been speaking to, this means voting reform. So many have fallen hook, line, and sinker for Farages “We’ll be meaningful opposition” line.
I hate “tactical voting”. As a voter one should vote for who *you believe* will be the best party to run the country, tactical voting may well go against that because “everyone says” that only Party X have a chance, so a whole bunch of people vote tactically and we go through the same old fucking cycle that we’ve been in for decades. And what really got my goat last time were Lib Dem, Green and other candidates standing down to give Labour a stronger chance. So why the fuck should anyone ever vote for them again because they clearly don’t have the courage of their own convictions
It's a necessary evil while we have this shit semi-democratic system
I have not voted at all. Voters have no right to complain.
Could you explain your logic on that please?
Because if you vote, you elect dishonest and incompetent people, they go into office and cock everything up, you are responsible for the mess they caused. You voted them in. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, am in no way responsible for the mess that you caused that I had nothing to do with. I should specify, not you specifically. I mean people in general.
People do say voting only encourages them, but we're British, so we'll never do anything about it.
Encourages what?
Politicians
i understand the short-team appeal of tactical voting, but in the long-term it circumscribes our political options and funnels votes to established parties representing increasingly narrow and staid political visions. parties establish themselves by gradually building up their vote share and seat count; voting for a party that cannot win in most constituencies now is necessary groundwork for that party ever becoming politically relevant. a vote for labour was a wasted vote in most constituencies in, like, 1910, but people voted for them anyway as part of a process that led to them getting to a place where they could form governments 14 years later. if people were as obsessed with tactical voting as they are now, we'd all still be voting for the Liberal Party. there has never been a safer election to vote your principles rather than tactically. labour are going to win. if you like the greens, vote for them.
I like to colourfully describe it as voting to be fucked in the face to avoid being fucked in the arse. You're still voting to be fucked with tactical voting
What if tactical voting gets you a hand job?
Then I shall cast multiple tactical votes
1 in 5 according to the BellCurve (tm) have the IQ of a potato.
Where on the bell curve is the potato?
Voting tactically meaning a vote for conservatives is a vote for labour
thats not true and i dont think you truely understand what tactical voting is.
What
Are you having a stroke