Then those that don’t turnout can’t complain after the fact. “Sure, keep destroying my country!”
Which option doesn’t keep destroying the country?
Labour. Massively and obviously labour.
Lmfao, have you been paying any attention? Starmer is a Tory in all but the colour of his fucking tie.
Just because there are two things that are not what you would choose, does not make them the same.
I don’t like beetroot, but if I had to choose between drinking beetroot juice and bleach, throwing my hands in the air and saying “both of these are as bad as each other” is simply not true.
The conservatives are a bleach that have been poisoning this country for the most 13 years.
Anyone (at this point in the election cycle) suggesting Starmer is as bad as the Tories is either actively at accidentally working for the Conservative Party electoral machine.
Incidentally, I also disagree that Starmer is that right wing. He’s a pragmatist that is prioritising getting into power first, and then will focus on moving the country leftwards.
For too long the left wing in this country have tried themselves into knots trying to suggest prefer policies that left them with no hope of electoral success and left the country at the mercy of right wing hate mongerers like Braverman, Johnson and Farage.
Corbyn is and was a wonderful, moral person, but fundamentally a bed candidate for leader of the Labour party at he couldn’t compromise is morals to get elected.
prioritising getting into power first, and then will focus on moving the country leftwards.
I keep seeing this but I struggle to believe it with no evidence whatsoever. Starmer ran for leadership with left wing promises and went back on them, why would he suddenly u-turn again when he gets into power? This just seems like a lie trying to persuade the left to hang around in a rightwards-creeping party
Honestly, you could be right, but I’m strongly hoping you’re not. And he’s much more left leaning than another 5 years of Tory ineptitude.
That’s for you to decide on, and for you to make your voice heard on. If you think neither option is a way to do so, then spoil your ballot, or at the very least vote for change because a potential shit government is better than a proven shit government.
A pineapple could beat the Tories at the next election. I will likely have to vote because it’s a solid Tory constituency which could fall. But this Labour party will only keep the Tories’ seats warm for them. I will be holding my nose and refusing to pretend that anything good is happening.
Great! I agree the labour party as it exists is quite a stench too, but I’d take them over the tories no problem
I am in a safe Labour seat but I’ll be voting Green. Labour lost my vote when they continued drifting to the right.
At the end of the day they need to win the election.
At this point I’d 100% take a shitty labour government that’s compromising, because it’s the first step to moving things back to the left.
If we had a better voting system then go for it, but I just think it’s silly for someone to waste a vote (if they aren’t in a safe seat).
Funnily enoguh I’m in a Labour safe seat and commented in another post my thiking on the vote:
I was gonna vote Green but they’re so non-existant in my constituency I may vote Lib Dem who are 4th. It’s a Labour safe seat so it’s not handing it to the Tories to vote my conscience. I’m Green economically but Lib Dem socially. Since Lib Dems are higher I’ll put my vote there.
If you’re in a safe seat then by all means.
But I’ll say to everyone here the same thing I say to Americans. Yous need to be pushing hard for a better electoral system. First past the post shouldn’t qualify as democracy, in my opinion. It’s just that bad. IRV is the bare minimum that should be acceptable. But ideally, you should push for some sort of proportional system like STV or MMP.
Electoral reform should be every intelligent voter’s highest priority, because without it you’ll always be stuck with the same two parties doing the same dull shit.
Shame neither party are actually offering electoral reform (and why would they - the current form works perfectly well, for them)
With the right pressure, I think Labour might be convinced. The Conservatives only got a majority at the last election because of FPTP. The two elections before that were even worse for the Conservatives’ overall vote.
This is especially true if Labour is only able to govern in coalition with LibDems and SNP.
Lmfao, ok… You go ahead and pin your hopes on the person who has literally purged Labour of anyone even slightly left leaning, who thinks racism is a joke, who thinks how disabled people are treated is just fine, who doesn’t give a fuck about the poor, who is only there to serve the establishment - to change the system that offers him the only shot at power. See how that works out for you…
Meanwhile those of us already targeted by the government, who know new labour isn’t going to change a thing will continue to suffer while you folks pat yourselves on the back for picking the “lesser evil” because you’re too scared of actually standing up for yourselves.
@DessertStorms @GreyShuck @Fudoshin @Zagorath
That’s why I’m hoping that no party wins overall majority. PR is the only way things will change.I doubt a coalition of the two (which Starmer would undoubtedly agree to) wouldn’t be any better unfortunately…
The fact is the system isn’t broken, it’s working exactly as intended. Which is why we need to abolish it entirely. Hanging hopes on electoral politics is continuing to play the same rigged game hoping those in charge will change the rules… They aren’t going to.
@DessertStorms @GreyShuck @Fudoshin @Zagorath
You’re right, but without a full-scale revolution how do we get there?By accepting that a revolution is necessary. There is no fixing (“reforming”) capitalism. Or a monarchy. Or a parliament that consists of an entire house of unelected “gentry”. The system was never meant to serve us and it never will.
Capitalism has been reformed, repeatedly. There are different forms of it, it evolves all the time. That was a key part of Marx’s philosophical stance, that capitalism was an ever-changing, revolutionary force, both destructive and creative; that was what he admired about it, in fact! Clement Attlee and other world leaders reformed capitalism with the Bretton Woods agreement and the many reforms we made post-war within countries. I think it’s very doubtful that a post-war revolution in the UK would’ve turned out well, given how the other post-war revolutions shaped up. Even Thatcher ‘reformed capitalism’ in this country (very much for the worse, obviously!).
As to your specific points… we have reformed all those things, repeatedly. It’s really quite odd to point to a country that has a constitutional monarchy, which used to be an absolute monarchy, and insist there’s no reforming that monarchy. It’s the way it is because we reformed it. In fact, we last reformed it in 2013. And the Lords was last reformed in 2015. The Commons was also reformed, for the better, in 2015 to allow recall of MPs.
Now, if you agree that these things are better than the alternative, that is the same thing as agreeing with reform. I think you and I probably agreee that the reforms didn’t go far enough, or even that it would be better to do away with some of these things altogether, but it’s not true to say that they can’t be reformed; abolishing the monarchy would be a reform, albeit a major one. Barbados did it very recently, again without a revolution. Even changing the Lords to an elected chamber or getting rid of the last Hereditary Peers would be reforms, and I imagine we’d both welcome them, up to a point!
@DessertStorms @GreyShuck @Fudoshin @Zagorath
I agree that starmer would work with the Tories, but I don’t think the Tories will work with Labour.
Our only chance of PR is a coalition between Labour and Lib Dems/Greens.Labour in coalition is definitely the best chance it has of happening.
That dude’s idea that Labour and the Conservatives would govern in coalition is laughable. In a wartime emergency, maybe, but the two parties just do not get along enough to do it if there is any other option.
I think Labour could probably be talked into getting on board with it over time, too. UK politics is at a point now where Labour is being hurt by FPTP. I think convincing them to go with PR (rather than IRV) is more difficult, but even that would be a big step up.
First of all, I’m not a fucking dude, second off all, have you been paying any attention to new Labour as opposition??? They literally oppose nothing the Tories are doing. NOTHING
They represent the same people, and those people aren’t you
There’s really no chance, short of WWIII, that Labour would enter a coalition with the Tories or vice-versa, and I don’t really understand why you think there could be.
IIRC, Starmer said some time ago that if Labour didn’t win a majority, they would form a minority government rather than a coalition with anyone (also relevant to !Zagorath@aussie.zone’s comment).
I don’t think the Tories will work with Labour.
they will do whatever keeps them in power.
“Drifting to the right” relative to what? Corbyn?
To put it simply I’ll point out on Political Compass that I’m in the lower left quadrant (left-libertarian). The parties that have consistently appeared there are Greens and, yes, Corbyn’s Labour:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2019
To give you an idea of how right-wing Labour really are check this older compass from back in 2010 - Labour and Conservatoives are barely any fucking different:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
Labour of 2017 & 2019 offered a genuine change to the political landscape. That’s now gone and Starmer has drifted back to neo-liberal authoritarianism. Th Greens are the only party offering what Labour used to offer.
There’s no clearer example of the rightward shift of the Overton window than look at how policies have morphed over to the right in those graphics. Compare them to parties in other countries. You’ll see that parties can exist and run a country in the left quadrants without an apocalypse.
The establishment eviscerated Corbyn massively because it rocked the boat far too much. Even the ‘left wing’ Guardian was found to be biased against him. London School of Economics did a great study into it: https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn
There’s also a great video where they did vox pop interviews with members of the ublic asking if they liked “policy X”. Huge amount of support for the policies but when they found out it was a Corbyn’s Labour policy they blanched and changed their mind.
So scrap Corbyn - I don’t care aboiut him personally. I do care about the Labour policies of that period though. They were a genuine fuckign change from the status quo.
I’m sure Starmers Labour will be better than the Tories but not by much. It will just be a slower decline rather than a change of direction.
Socially I’m more Lib Dem but economically I’m old Labour. Black Rose Labour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)
If pushed, I’d also describe myself as libertarian socialist. Nice to have something in common!
Now, for the diagreements…
The central plank of Labour’s economic policy from Gordon Brown to the present day has been to borrow for investment but not for day-to-day spending. That’s consistently been the argument under Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer (and Harman, in the two interregnums). The differences after that are really just window dressing and changing with the times. A bit more Green stuff here; a bit more planning reform there. Starmer’s current trade union policies are more pro-union than Corbyn’s were, they’re just dressed in a nice suit!
The Greens are, frankly, just dreadful. They are just a Green NIMBY party. They even oppose pro-environmental policies if they’ll spoil some rich guy’s view and that is a reflection of who they are as a party, in terms of their members and their financial backers.
We need to not get caught up in rhetoric and presentation. What we have is what we’ve always had: one party funded by trade unions and co-ops and a bunch of others funded by the wealthy. That’s the key difference.
Thanks for your response which is much better than the tit who simply commented “Political Compass == Shit” with nothing to add.
The central plank of Labour’s economic policy from Gordon Brown to the present day has been to borrow for investment but not for day-to-day spending.
That may have been the case but not anymore that I can see. Why have Labour walked back and reversed all of their pledges on infrastructure spending (E.g. environment pledge, HS2, etc)? Because they just want to continue the same policies as the Tories but more competently.
The differences after that are really just window dressing and changing with the times.
If by chaning with the times you mean Starmer admitting we’ve got to carry on Tory policy because the country has no money - then yeah I guess. But that['s not “window dressing”. Actually, no, it IS window dressing. It’s a Tory wearing a red rose and tie. That’s the window dressing.
I don’t see Nordic-model social democracy here. I see Wes Streeting vowing to “open the door wide to the private sector”. A policy that has been proven detrimental to the NHS since it was floated by Major and implemented by Blair.
Wes Streeting looks at Singapore as a model for the UK NHS. A country with great hospitals but it’s also a low-tax, one-party dictatorship with eye-watering income inequality. That’d be like looking at North Korea’s labour camps and saying we need to import their excellant work ethic.
Starmer’s current trade union policies are more pro-union than Corbyn’s were
I’m wondering if we’re talking about the same Labour party. You mean Starmer who veto’d public support of the Unions? Starmer who sacked MPs for speaking on it or showing at pickets? I must admit I initially bought the bullshit he spouted about Labour needing to represent the whole country (business and unions) but seeing the suffering going on in the NHS and the shit doctors and nurses are going through - he’s morally wrong. It’s not about being a “party of government” it’s about makign a moral stand for what’s right. Something Starmer seems allergic to.
We need to not get caught up in rhetoric and presentation
I used to agree. I used to say Starmer is just saying what he needs to win. But I can’t anymore after a year of him flip-flopping, reversals, transphobia, kissing corporate arse, banning open union support, party purges of anyone left of centre, Palestine, privatisationpolicy
You’re absolutely right it’s just window dressing - They’re just competent Tories.
In fact there’s actually Tories that are more left wing than current Labour. One Nation Tories like Theresa May wanted to have workers reps on company boards until it got shot down by all parties concerned. Heaven forbid we implement a policy that has worked well on the “Commie continent”.
In a decade when the country is in a worse state people will scrabble around wondering who to vote for and their only choice will be - the same shits with a different coloured tie.
I’m sorry to be blunt, but most of what you’ve written here just isn’t true. Labour are entirely committed to greater spending on rail and environmental policies, and that’s exactly what Labour politicians are doing, right now, in Wales, London and Manchester (and everywhere else they’re in power).
What they’re not committed to is doing so through the kind of borrowing that will cause interest rates to surge and lead to people defaulting on their mortgages. This isn’t hypothetical: it’s what happened when Liz Truss committed to over-borrowing with no clear end in sight. If that means Labour spend ‘only’ £20 billion a year on green policies, will that make much of a difference compared with £28 billion? I think not - certainly not compared to the difference that would be made by causing mass loan defaults!
The last Labour government enormously improved the NHS. We had dozens of new hospitals, we had well-trained staff, we had the lowest waiting lists in history. To say, as you have, that Blair’s policies ‘proved detrimental’ isn’t true. It was the Andrew Lansley reforms under David Cameron that wrecked it, and the consistent underspending has kept it in a poor state (and, of course, Covid played a role, which can’t really be helped).
Regarding the unions, I’m afraid you are being distracted by the window dressing. Does an MP on a picket line help a union win a dispute? No: it’s all for show. The actual policies, to have collective bargaining across every sector, empower unions to negotiate fair pay deals, ensure reps get facility time, introduce secure electronic ballotting, etc., etc.: that’s what will make the difference. It is not ‘a fact’ that there are Tories more leftwing than Labour on any of these policies (or, indeed, on any policy whatsoever).
All this other stuff about ties and whatever is just empty rhetoric. People have been saying this about Labour for a century, but every time Labour get into power we make the country better. Now, that is a fact. You keep talking about how bad the NHS is now, and you’re right to. But what you’re implictly comparing it with is the NHS under Labour - when it was good!
If the country votes Labour at the next election, which is in no way guaranteed, we’ll get green investment, green planning reform and stronger worker protections. Those are all worth fighting for.
EDIT: Sorry, lastly, as to your point about doing what’s right: would it be ‘right’ to lose the election on a ‘moral’ platform and thus achieve nothing for anyone? It is morally right for politicians to compromise and negotiate. That is actually the thing we want from them; it’s the whole point of a parliamentary system in a democracy.
Also, Political Compass is a bit rubbish. Sorry. It’s a fun game, but it’s not something on which we should base our actual actions.
The Political Compass is a joke though.
Did you miss the bit where it says Labour were more right-wing than the BNP?
It’s based on responses (policies) to a standardised test. It’s also set on two axes so it’s possible for a party such as UKIP for example to appear left-wing economically than you’d think because some of their policies were made to attract the low income working class vote.
Which is precisely what the BNP did (several left-wing policies) and in fact it’s what the OG Nazi’s did by adding “Socialist” to their name and initially attracting socialists before the Night of the Long Knives when they purged all left wingers.
So no, it’s not bullshit. You just don’t know how it works. I’m not suggesting it’s perfect and like I pointed out it doesn’t predict a party’s future changes pr give a detailed account of policies. It’s a rough snapshot that gives a taste of a party’s placement on two axes.
But you took one look at the fucking pictures and assumed you know best. Which is the level of political nous I’ve come to expect from other Brits. So do jog on.
I’m a NZ citizen and left wing voter. UK Labour look hopelessly centrist to me. Corbyn was obviously more LW
Tactical vote, stop the Tories!
Check this site or risk splitting the left vote and letting the right wing in.
Doesn’t matter get out and vote. Don’t know if this article is part of it, but the powers that be want you to feel like there is no reason to go out and vote. There is every reason to get out and vote. Go vote. Do it. Kick the bastards out. I fucking hate starmer but anything is better than the conservatives. Move the Overton window further left. Vote. Vote. Vote.
Move the Overton window further left
That won’t happen with Labour.
Quite possibly true, sure as fuck not happening with the tories though!
It isn’t that they’re “dull”, it’s that they offer the exact same bullshit and serve the same overlords, rather than the public.
This is deliberate of course, and trying to frame it as somehow the public’s fault and not the systems’ is gross propaganda.Either way - we are not the US, and we do have the ability to vote “none” in protest.
DO.
vote against the conservatives. Why on earth would you want to risk another 4 years of this?
don’t give in to apathy. the older conservative voters won’t. it’s always like this before an election. a concerted effort to increase apathy.
I think you’re underestimating how fucked the Tories are in the next election. They’re going to get wiped out. If ever there was a time to vote your conscience, it’s this election because the Tories aren’t getting back in.
IMO you should vote with whoever most closely aligned with your views in most cases anyway. This is definitely one of those cases. Labour have the centre on lock but have abandoned the left, so the results should show that. If everyone one the left votes Labour in fear then it seems like everything is hunky-dory when it’s absolutely not. The ideal realistic situation would be a hung parliament with a Labour largest party, opening the door for electoral reform debates. Preferably with a few parties (Greens, Binface etc.) with a decent percentage but no representation, which would further point out the need for reform, and also point out the lack of positive support for Labour.most aligned with my views is giving the Tories a spanking of a lifetime
Hohoho yes, I can get behind that.
In practice, the Tories will only get wiped out if Labour win lots of seats. There’s no way you can realistically engineer your ideal situation with your one vote. If you want to get the Tories out, which we both do, then nearly everywhere in the country the answer is to vote Labour. We really can’t fuck around, here. Polls have been way out before and the Tories are doing what they can to suppress the vote. If we mess this up, we really could be stuck with the Tories for another five years.
Couldn’t Labour form a coalition with the left-leaning parties? I am not well-versed in British politics but I think that even if Labour doesn’t win a big majority, the Tories could still be shellacked with the combined votes for everyone else, right?
If that’s not the case, please explain because I am genuinely curious
In the UK, we vote by constituency. A party could actually come second in term of votes nationally but still win more constituencies, and thus have more MPs (as happened in 1951 and in February 1974). This has historically been a problem for Labour: They get lots of votes in safe seats, with MPs winning 60% of the vote or more, but then they lose more narrowly elsewhere, leading to lots of Labour votes translating into not a lot of Labour MPs.
The second factor is that the left vote tends to be ‘split’ in the UK. If you have a constituency where the parties standing are:
- Conservative
- Green
- Labour
- Lib Dem
- Reform
You have a situation where the ‘left’ vote might split three ways (to Lab, LD and Green), but the ‘right’ vote splits only two ways (to Con and Reform). So, you could get a result like:
- Con: 33%
- Lab: 32%
- Lib Dem: 13%
- Green: 12%
- Reform: 10%
In that scenario, the majority of the voters (57%) have voted for left-leaning parties, and only a third have voted Conservative – but the Conservatives would win the seat.
There are a lot of constituencies where the outcome looks broadly like what I’ve described. That’s why I’m saying that the best way to beat the Tories is almost always to vote Labour. Of course, people might have other reasons they don’t want to vote Labour (I certainly don’t agree with everything they do, that would be weird), but if the priority is ‘get the Tories out’, the answer is to vote Labour.
Okay, I see now, for some reason my mind completely skipped elections for individual MPs and thought only about the full parliament. I’ve wondered why, when people seem to loathe the Tory PMs who have been coming through the revolving door for the past several years, why people keep voting them in as a majority, but now it makes perfect sense. This is how even a parliamentary system with multiple parties gets wrecked, FPTP voting is always the wrong answer. Sorry for being dense and overlooking what should be an obvious answer.
Yes, but bear in mind that at the last election, the majority of the British public voted against the Tories on most issues, yet we have a huge Tory majority. So it doesn’t work. Our democracy doesn’t work.
If you think Labour are shit, don’t vote for them. If that causes the Tories to get back in then that can’t be your fault. You shouldn’t have to have a deep understanding of the political machine to vote effectively. Vote for the party you want.
I broadly agree with you. It’s just that there are a lot of people here saying ‘(1) I want the Tories out but (2) I won’t vote Labour’ and my point is that (1) and (2) are, for almost every voter, mutually exclusive. As we’ve learned over the last few years, you really can’t have your cake and eat it!
They’re going to get wiped out.
Hang on so your logic is we should not vote because the Tories are going to get kicked out anyway.
How will that happen if no one votes?
No not at all. You should vote for the party you like the most, rather than voting against the party you like the least. If there are no parties you like, spoil your ballot. But absolutely vote.
Thinking Starmer will offer you anything different is the epitome of apathy, voting neither is the exact opposite (and also is a vote against conservatives, which you would know if you’d actually read anything in the link which I suspect you didn’t even click).
Maybe try actually understanding the system you’re blindly participating in and advocating for because you believe in the illusion of choice those in power have presented you with (don’t worry, I won’t hold my breath):
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
This is a great discussion for the long term, but conservative rule must end. Labour is best positioned to actually beat them and are the better option.
This is it. I’m Labour all the way and in a safe seat, but if I lived elsewhere I would have to seriously consider voting Lib Dem, Green, SNP or Plaid Cymru (or, really, anyone bar Reform!) if they were best-placed to beat the Tories. But the fact is that, as you say, for very nearly everywhere, Labour is the obvious choice to get the Conservatives out!
They’ve beaten themselves. Only the lizards are still voting Tory. They’re fucked. Your dusty argument of having to vote for the only other biggest party is useless in this case. Vote for who you want. The Tories aren’t getting in
Eww
That’s how you get stuck with shitty RW government. That said, Starmer IS dull and politically milquetoast
we don’t need another rock star PM like Jonson.
I was referring more to his political timidity than his lack of charisma
I find it frustrating, too, but after we lost the by-election in Johnson’s seat over the obviously good but controversial policy of the Ulez, I can totally understand the timidity. We literally lost an election as ‘punishment’ for a policy that made the air cleaner and raised money! It’s completely ridiculous, but that’s the world we live in.
why make too many proposals now. don’t give your enemies something to pin on you.
If they get a good majority I firmly believe it will be for the better. they can implement things that will change the UK for the better.
13 years of austerity have destroyed the country.
once things are a bit better than we can put the Tories back in to sell off the progress to their mates again.
once things are a bit better than we can put the Tories back in to sell off the progress to their mates again.
UK politics in a nutshell! Maybe one day we’ll break the cycle.
Agree that Labour will make things better. Got my hopes up for better employment law, planning reform (=more houses) and green investment. If we do get a bit of growth, we should see some health and education improvements, too.
Well, if there’s low turnout from the Tories, sounds like suddenly everyone else’s vote matters more.
Be sure to still vote, and make sure your friends and (maybe) family do to. I mean, if your friends and family were pro-Brexit, and somehow still are/would vote for it again, maybe just leave them be; sounds like a lost cause politically.
I think Curtice underestimates how much people want the Tories out, to be honest. I think we’ll see high levels of tactical voting among people who want the Tories out, which is nearly everyone, and that will drive higher turnout.
EDIT: Just saw this, lot of it about in this thread:
“If Starmer wants to win a general election, then he’s going to have to compromise and do things that I might not like to appeal to a broader cross-section of voters. Now, that might lead to improvements in the lives of the majority of people and remove the worst government in living memory, but is that worth me having to put up with him not doing everything that I specifically want him [sic] from a Labour government? Not really.”
Which is why voting should be compulsory. Even if you only write ‘Shove it’ on the ballot paper.
What would that achieve Vs just not voting? You’re filtering out the population that don’t want to vote either way. I don’t think any party would suddenly care more if they could “see” people spoiling their ballot paper Vs just not filling it in.
You’d then also have to set up some sort of commission to fine people for not voting. Doesn’t sound like an effective use of time.
What would that achieve Vs just not voting?
Actually a great question, and the answer isn’t necessarily obvious for someone who hasn’t had experience with compulsory voting.
The effect of compulsory voting is that voter suppression techniques (discouraging people from wanting to vote, making it hard for certain people to vote, etc.), like the ones being discussed here become impossible. The AEC has to make it easy for every Australian to vote, and the government has to fund them appropriately to be able to do that. Elections are always held on a Saturday, to ensure the maximum amount of people can vote on the day. Prepolling is also extremely easy for people who can’t make it on the day. Most people do have a preference one way or the other, even if that preference isn’t enough to get out and vote normally. By making it compulsory, even those people will have their say. You can’t run a campaign designed less to make yourself seem good than to simply make people think it’s not worth the effort of voting. You have to actually convince people yes, you are the better option.
Yes, some people still choose to give an informal vote (often unofficially referred to as “spoiling” their ballot). Putting a blank ballot in the box, or writing something you think is funny, or drawing a penis on the ballot, are popular examples of deliberate informal votes. In 2022, we had a voter turnout of 89.82% of enrolled voters. Of those, just 5.19% ballots were informal. It’s impossible to know how many of the informal ballots were mistakes by the voter versus deliberately “spoilt” ballots. But that’s a total formal vote of 85.16% of enrolled voters. Compare that to the UK’s 67.3% turnout at the last UK general election and the difference is stark. Think also that the percentage of eligible voters who are enrolled to vote in Australia is much higher than in the UK, again due to the compulsory vote, and the difference becomes even more significant.
I was not expecting this answer. Thanks, it’s actually made me rethink my views on the matter. 🙏
Well, spoiled ballots are tracked and when there’s a higher than normal proportion of spoiled ballots its clear there’s something wrong, which can be the basis for various courses of action.
Calling it a spoiled ballot is usually fine, but from my time doing work for the AEC I wanna point out that technically, what @baggins@beehaw.org described above isn’t what would be classified as a “spoiled” ballot. It’s an informal vote. Officially, spoiled ballots are when a voter brings it back to the polling official and says “I made a mistake, can you give me another one?” They go in a special envelope and never go in the ballot box, unlike informal votes.
TIL!
I can’t comment on the effectiveness, but doesn’t Australia do this? Their voter turnout is around 90%. I think the 10% are the real part of eligible voters who don’t want to vote not the 30-40% you see in some other countries. What do you think?
Because some of those will vote legitimately. ‘You want to slag off the government/MPs? Then vote - or keep your trap shut and suck it up.’ That needs to be on posters.
And to wheel out the old chestnut - people died so that we can sit on our arses and complain. Get out and vote.
And of course you can always vote by post. Not exactly difficult.
This is good. One of the reasons we get such shit governments is all the people just voting for the celebrity leader not thinking about the actual policy. If those people can’t be bothered to turn out then we might get more of a percentage of votes coming from people that actually know what they are voting for.
Yay! That makes it even easier for the Tory party to get away with rampant breaches of election campaign laws - just like they have since 2009!!
This is why compulsory voting is so good!
