UK - December 2019 General Election

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

But not enabling it by not voting for it is different from enabling it by voting for it because you think you do want it even though it goes against your actual best interests.

This, I think, is our key point of disagreement. You think that not voting against a party isn't enabling that party. I think that not voting against a party is enabling that party.

Think of it this way - assuming a two-party election, if someone votes for the Conservative candidate and someone else votes against them, then the net result is zero. OTOH, if someone votes for the Conservative candidate and someone else doesn't vote for them, then the net result is one vote for the Conservative candidate.

Of course, it's more complicated than that because it's not a two-party system, but the point remains that abstaining is not an act that has zero influence. It's an act that enables whoever gets the largest number of votes to win.

One thing it doesn't do is make politicians think "the number of people abstaining is high. They must be doing so in a protest at how our electoral system works. We should reform it". If anything, it makes politicians think "the people don't care who governs them, or what we do, so we can do whatever we want".

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think it's reasonable to acknowledge that in many constituencies the result is a foregone conclusion. I can totally sympathise with someone in such a constituency who simply doesn't want to add his vote to the tally of a party he has serious issues with but which might be a less worse option than a different party.

If you're in a marginal constituency then it's perhaps more incumbent on you to decide who is the least worst and go and give them your vote. But if you know the result of your constituency in advance, what's the point if you basically hate all of them to a greater or lesser extent?

I understand the thinking. I'm in a very secure Tory seat myself, and I have serious issues with every single party.

But that doesn't mean that throwing your hands up in the air and declaring that everything is hopeless so you might as well not bother is the best course of action. You fight for what you think is best, even if you think it's hopeless, because it's better than the alternative.

And, as I said, it's not even that really. Everybody is entitled to vote or not vote as their conscience dictates. It's just the hypocrisy of criticising how other people vote while not even bothering yourself. Of criticising other people for enabling an outcome they don't want while doing exactly the same thing yourself. I don't think it's a solid foundation from which to be throwing boulders.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Farage is not going to stand in the election.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2019-50278984

"Speaking about his decision not to stand in December's poll, Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage says he thought "very hard" about "how to serve the cause of Brexit best".

"I don't want to be in politics for the rest of my life," he says.

But he says he will be going out "across the country" with the Brexit Party's message.

He also says he has been wanting to form a "Leave alliance" for months, adding: "I still hope and pray it happens, but it doesn't look like it will."

Nothing to do with all the other times he ran and lost?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Nigel Tweeted

From tomorrow, I will be going out to campaign across the length and breadth of this country.
We will explain to people why Boris’ Brexit is a betrayal of the hopes of 17.4m.
That means I have no time to fight a seat myself, but I will support 600 other people who are.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I think it's reasonable to acknowledge that in many constituencies the result is a foregone conclusion. I can totally sympathise with someone in such a constituency who simply doesn't want to add his vote to the tally of a party he has serious issues with but which might be a less worse option than a different party.

If you're in a marginal constituency then it's perhaps more incumbent on you to decide who is the least worst and go and give them your vote. But if you know the result of your constituency in advance, what's the point if you basically hate all of them to a greater or lesser extent?

But so long as minority voters in safe seats don't go out and vote because they 'know' they won't win it's a self fulfilling prophecy, the chance of overturning a safe seat if other parties go out and vote may be low, but it's there, if they don't it isn't. I live in a safe seat (Tory for a century since the one time it returned a Liberal) I really do sympathise with not bothering, but if we're not happy with the status quo I don't think we can afford to think that way.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

FWIW, taking the figure of 75% turnout and a 42.5% lead for the Tory candidate, then if every one of those 25% voted for the second-highest polling party, then the Tory lead would be reduced to 9.2%.

Of course, not everybody would vote that way, but the point is that that 25% is not irrelevant. What they do does matter.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/01/labour-would-make-all-new-homes-zero-carbon-by-2022

Reality check: there's a very good reason why everyone isn't building "carbon neutral" buildings: it's very expensive. The amount of money that's saved on heating and power is a drop in the bucket compared to the extra costs on building and maintaining the house itself, and that emits green-house gases too. It's not like you can ignore the cost of building said solar panels or heat pumps.

Yes I've never really been a fan of small-scale renewables seem really inefficient. There should be tougher standards on energy and water saving though i think.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This, I think, is our key point of disagreement. You think that not voting against a party isn't enabling that party. I think that not voting against a party is enabling that party.

Think of it this way - assuming a two-party election, if someone votes for the Conservative candidate and someone else votes against them, then the net result is zero. OTOH, if someone votes for the Conservative candidate and someone else doesn't vote for them, then the net result is one vote for the Conservative candidate.

Of course, it's more complicated than that because it's not a two-party system, but the point remains that abstaining is not an act that has zero influence. It's an act that enables whoever gets the largest number of votes to win.

One thing it doesn't do is make politicians think "the number of people abstaining is high. They must be doing so in a protest at how our electoral system works. We should reform it". If anything, it makes politicians think "the people don't care who governs them, or what we do, so we can do whatever we want".

If the election is close then yes I agree. If it's a foregone conclusion then I disagree. Because a futile action has no effect on the outcome.

Whether it makes politicians think is open to debate but its a secondary consideration anyway. Spoiled papers don't make them think either. Nothing makes them think it seems. They don't care about anything other than getting elected and when you have 60-odd percent of the vote already you don't need to worry about one guy who is pissed off.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

FWIW, taking the figure of 75% turnout and a 42.5% lead for the Tory candidate, then if every one of those 25% voted for the second-highest polling party, then the Tory lead would be reduced to 9.2%.

Of course, not everybody would vote that way, but the point is that that 25% is not irrelevant. What they do does matter.

Even if an impossible thing happened you would still be 10% away from making the slightest bit of difference is not exactly a rousing rallying call for me and not exactly evidence that what people do matters.

Does anyone know if there are odds on individual MPs to be elected anywhere? Wouldn't mind seeing what mine is. I would imagine something like 100,000-1 to not be.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If the election is close then yes I agree. If it's a foregone conclusion then I disagree. Because a futile action has no effect on the outcome.

Yes it does. A small one, but a difference. So does not voting.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Even if an impossible thing happened you would still be 10% away from making the slightest bit of difference is not exactly a rousing rallying call for me and not exactly evidence that what people do matters.

It it were a 10% difference in the last election, would you be proclaiming that your vote in this one doesn't matter?

Does anyone know if there are odds on individual MPs to be elected anywhere? Wouldn't mind seeing what mine is. I would imagine something like 100,000-1 to not be.

Odds are not probabilities.

 

[Vixen]

Even if an impossible thing happened you would still be 10% away from making the slightest bit of difference is not exactly a rousing rallying call for me and not exactly evidence that what people do matters.

Does anyone know if there are odds on individual MPs to be elected anywhere? Wouldn't mind seeing what mine is. I would imagine something like 100,000-1 to not be.

Well, Amber Rudd came within 300-odd votes of losing her seat. Nothing is a foregone conclusion in politics. Look what happened to Winston Churchill. Shock results happen all the time. Like the time the rock solid Labour seat of Holborn & St Pancras (or one of its wards) unexpectedly returned the LibDems, albeit briefly.

According to 'shock' polls (to the DM, that is) the Conservative lead is now only eight points. (36/28)

 

[Vixen]

Nigel Farage's withdrawal from the elections calls for the time honoured gif of the baby MEP running into the room and then suddenly changing its mind.

https://twitter.com/PoliticsJOE_UK/status/1190959945199620096?s=20

 

[Garrison]

Well, Amber Rudd came within 300-odd votes of losing her seat. Nothing is a foregone conclusion in politics. Look what happened to Winston Churchill. Shock results happen all the time. Like the time the rock solid Labour seat of Holborn & St Pancras (or one of its wards) unexpectedly returned the LibDems, albeit briefly.

According to 'shock' polls (to the DM, that is) the Conservative lead is now only eight points. (36/28)

Which is rather what happened to May, the polls all pointed to a landslide for the Tories so she gambled on bolstering her majority. In terms of campaigning I think Corbyn might have the edge over Johnson in that it would be hard for Corby to be seen in a more negative light than he already is while Boris could see the shine taken off his popularity if he hits any speedbumps.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It it were a 10% difference in the last election, would you be proclaiming that your vote in this one doesn't matter?

If 100% of the electorate had turned out in a never in a lifetime anomaly and we were STILL 10% behind? Yes.

Odds are not probabilities.

No, but they certainly reflect them.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes it does. A small one, but a difference. So does not voting.

Tell me what that effect on the OUTCOME is then.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Well, Amber Rudd came within 300-odd votes of losing her seat. Nothing is a foregone conclusion in politics. Look what happened to Winston Churchill. Shock results happen all the time. Like the time the rock solid Labour seat of Holborn & St Pancras (or one of its wards) unexpectedly returned the LibDems, albeit briefly.

Amber Rudd's constituency was a Labour seat in 2005. And she won it in 2010 with a 4% margin. Where is the shock in her having a narrow majority???

As far as I can see Holbron and St Pancras has been Labour since it existed. Its a great example of where voting has no point. Keir Starmer has a 52% lead over the Tory. If you are a Lib Dem or Green supporter there then you are wasting your time.

According to 'shock' polls (to the DM, that is) the Conservative lead is now only eight points. (36/28)

Which tells us nothing about individual constituencies.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Tell me what that effect on the OUTCOME is then.

You seem to believe that the person who gets elected is the only outcome. This is obviously not true, since you yourself are using the percentage by which he or she was elected as your reasoning for your future actions. How much support various parties are deemed to have is one of the outcomes. How people react to that perception is another.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If 100% of the electorate had turned out in a never in a lifetime anomaly and we were STILL 10% behind? Yes.

Is it your belief, then, that everybody always votes the same way in every election, and that it would be impossible for there to be a swing of 5% from one election to the next? Do you not think that needing a swing of 5% would make it closer to a marginal constituency than it would a safe seat?

No, but they certainly reflect them.

They can do. They don't necessarily.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You seem to believe that the person who gets elected is the only outcome. This is obviously not true, since you yourself are using the percentage by which he or she was elected as your reasoning for your future actions. How much support various parties are deemed to have is one of the outcomes. How people react to that perception is another.

And one extra vote is going to have no impact on that outcome either. It's not even a rounding error in the percentages.