|
|
Post by batman on Feb 27, 2024 12:11:08 GMT
I suspect that the Lib Dems will pick up a few votes from anti-ULEZ voters in some boroughs, especially Kingston & Richmond, who can't bring themselves to vote for Susan Hall. It's what we are finding on the doorstep to a limited degree.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Feb 27, 2024 12:14:32 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention [Greater London]:
LAB: 52% (-3)
CON: 17% (-3)
LDM: 10% (+1)
GRN: 10% (+1)
RFM: 10% (+6)
Via @yougov, 12-19 Feb.
Changes w/ 12-17 Oct.
Since the last GE, that would be
Lab +4
Con -15
LD -5
Green +7
Reform +9 from BP
and on uniform swing would lead to seats won being
LAB: 61 (+9)
CON: 9 (-9)
LDM: 5 (=)
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Feb 27, 2024 12:14:40 GMT
I suspect that the Lib Dems will pick up a few votes from anti-ULEZ voters in some boroughs, especially Kingston & Richmond, who can't bring themselves to vote for Susan Hall. It's what we are finding on the doorstep to a limited degree. I appreciate that this seldom has much to do with voting intentions (!) but are the Lib Dems really anti-ULEZ? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 39,015
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Feb 27, 2024 13:28:51 GMT
On (alleged) past form, they might alter that message according to who they are talking to?  |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Feb 27, 2024 14:43:42 GMT
There also exists a group of people who will under no circumstances vote Labour/Khan as a result of ULEZ and will be looking for someone to vote for - they won’t all go to the Conservatives. Many voters aren’t as switched on as those of us on this forum. Sometimes the push away from one candidate is enough to drive them into the arms of another with very similar views.
|
|
|
|
Post by gibbon on Feb 27, 2024 15:00:21 GMT
Will Lib Dem and Green supporters vote fro Khan once they realise that this is a first past the post vote realising that a vote for their preferred candidate might let in the Conservatives?
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Feb 27, 2024 15:46:25 GMT
I suspect that the Lib Dems will pick up a few votes from anti-ULEZ voters in some boroughs, especially Kingston & Richmond, who can't bring themselves to vote for Susan Hall. It's what we are finding on the doorstep to a limited degree. I appreciate that this seldom has much to do with voting intentions (!) but are the Lib Dems really anti-ULEZ? well no, but probably no voter seriously thinks that a vote for the LDs would reverse it, they just feel the need to vote against Khan who extended it to their borough, or in the case of Richmond to take in the whole of their borough. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Feb 27, 2024 15:47:27 GMT
Will Lib Dem and Green supporters vote fro Khan once they realise that this is a first past the post vote realising that a vote for their preferred candidate might let in the Conservatives? some will if they think that they don't want either Khan or Hall in even if they know that their vote will be, in a sense at least, wasted. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 27, 2024 16:30:33 GMT
Will Lib Dem and Green supporters vote fro Khan once they realise that this is a first past the post vote realising that a vote for their preferred candidate might let in the Conservatives? Bizarrely, the long history of FPTP in the UK shows that people continue to vote for minor parties in vast numbers, despite the risk of “splitting” the votes and “letting in” the “wrong” party. Perhaps they don’t consider their votes to be “wasted” in the political sense, even if they are wasted in a mathematical sense. Kanother way of looking at it is that a vote for a minor candidate is another version of a non-voter - except that the voter has given a clue about why they don’t want to vote for either of the “two main” candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Feb 27, 2024 17:03:58 GMT
Will Lib Dem and Green supporters vote fro Khan once they realise that this is a first past the post vote realising that a vote for their preferred candidate might let in the Conservatives? Bizarrely, the long history of FPTP in the UK shows that people continue to vote for minor parties in vast numbers, despite the risk of “splitting” the votes and “letting in” the “wrong” party. Perhaps they don’t consider their votes to be “wasted” in the political sense, even if they are wasted in a mathematical sense. Kanother way of looking at it is that a vote for a minor candidate is another version of a non-voter - except that the voter has given a clue about why they don’t want to vote for either of the “two main” candidates. Absolutely, and it's their prerogative to use their votes in that way if they wish.
Most of what we hear about so-called 'wasted' votes is (to use the site's word of the day) hogwash. It's patronizing, and probably wrong, to suggest that people voting for a hopeless candidate did so under the misapprehension that he or she stood a decent chance of winning. It's much likelier that these voters were fully aware of the realities of the election, but were unengaged by the main candidates and preferred to use their votes to make a statement.
Personally, I wouldn't use my vote in this way; but if others choose to do so, it's their choice and if they don't think such a vote was wasted, neither should anyone else.
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473 
|
Post by peterl on Feb 27, 2024 17:18:24 GMT
Bizarrely, the long history of FPTP in the UK shows that people continue to vote for minor parties in vast numbers, despite the risk of “splitting” the votes and “letting in” the “wrong” party. Perhaps they don’t consider their votes to be “wasted” in the political sense, even if they are wasted in a mathematical sense. Kanother way of looking at it is that a vote for a minor candidate is another version of a non-voter - except that the voter has given a clue about why they don’t want to vote for either of the “two main” candidates. Absolutely, and it's their prerogative to use their votes in that way if they wish. Most of what we hear about so-called 'wasted' votes is (to use the site's word of the day) hogwash. It's patronizing, and probably wrong, to suggest that people voting for a hopeless candidate did so under the misapprehension that he or she stood a decent chance of winning. It's much likelier that these voters were fully aware of the realities of the election, but were unengaged by the main candidates and preferred to use their votes to make a statement. Personally, I wouldn't use my vote in this way; but if others choose to do so, it's their choice and if they don't think such a vote was wasted, neither should anyone else.
Well quite, personally I've never voted for a candidate for Parliament who I thought had the slightest chance of being elected. May do this year though. |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Feb 27, 2024 17:25:58 GMT
Bizarrely, the long history of FPTP in the UK shows that people continue to vote for minor parties in vast numbers, despite the risk of “splitting” the votes and “letting in” the “wrong” party. Perhaps they don’t consider their votes to be “wasted” in the political sense, even if they are wasted in a mathematical sense. Kanother way of looking at it is that a vote for a minor candidate is another version of a non-voter - except that the voter has given a clue about why they don’t want to vote for either of the “two main” candidates. Absolutely, and it's their prerogative to use their votes in that way if they wish.
Most of what we hear about so-called 'wasted' votes is (to use the site's word of the day) hogwash. It's patronizing, and probably wrong, to suggest that people voting for a hopeless candidate did so under the misapprehension that he or she stood a decent chance of winning. It's much likelier that these voters were fully aware of the realities of the election, but were unengaged by the main candidates and preferred to use their votes to make a statement.
Personally, I wouldn't use my vote in this way; but if others choose to do so, it's their choice and if they don't think such a vote was wasted, neither should anyone else.
I agree to a point though the reason why I support an alternative voting system is looking at this from the other way around. There are wasted votes, in a regional context, where ultra safe seats and wafer thin marginals combine to not serve anybody well enough. The former promotes complacency, the latter becomes a crap-shoot. Using some kind of PR would still have 'wasted ' votes, it's the overall result I care about, and "winner takes all" is the worst of all. |
|
|
|
Post by london(ex)tory on Feb 27, 2024 17:53:03 GMT
Absolutely, and it's their prerogative to use their votes in that way if they wish. Most of what we hear about so-called 'wasted' votes is (to use the site's word of the day) hogwash. It's patronizing, and probably wrong, to suggest that people voting for a hopeless candidate did so under the misapprehension that he or she stood a decent chance of winning. It's much likelier that these voters were fully aware of the realities of the election, but were unengaged by the main candidates and preferred to use their votes to make a statement. Personally, I wouldn't use my vote in this way; but if others choose to do so, it's their choice and if they don't think such a vote was wasted, neither should anyone else.
Well quite, personally I've never voted for a candidate for Parliament who I thought had the slightest chance of being elected. May do this year though. I've never voted for a successful candidate in a General Election - in 2005 I voted Conservative in Warwick & Leamington (lost by 266), and in each election since I voted Conservative in Leyton & Wanstead (lost by 8,583 in 2010, by 14,919 in 2015, by 22,607 in 2017 and 20,808 in 2019). Do I consider any of these votes "wasted"? No of course not, I made the choice that I wanted to at the time. And in 2024 I'll vote Reform - and that vote won't be "wasted" either. Vote for what you believe in, not what you're scared of. |
|
r34t
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,199
|
Post by r34t on Feb 27, 2024 18:28:13 GMT
On (alleged) past form, they might alter that message according to who they are talking to? On (alleged) past form they might ask who they are talking to what message they'd prefer ? |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Feb 27, 2024 18:29:52 GMT
Bizarrely, the long history of FPTP in the UK shows that people continue to vote for minor parties in vast numbers, despite the risk of “splitting” the votes and “letting in” the “wrong” party. Perhaps they don’t consider their votes to be “wasted” in the political sense, even if they are wasted in a mathematical sense. Kanother way of looking at it is that a vote for a minor candidate is another version of a non-voter - except that the voter has given a clue about why they don’t want to vote for either of the “two main” candidates. Absolutely, and it's their prerogative to use their votes in that way if they wish.
Most of what we hear about so-called 'wasted' votes is (to use the site's word of the day) hogwash. It's patronizing, and probably wrong, to suggest that people voting for a hopeless candidate did so under the misapprehension that he or she stood a decent chance of winning. It's much likelier that these voters were fully aware of the realities of the election, but were unengaged by the main candidates and preferred to use their votes to make a statement.
Personally, I wouldn't use my vote in this way; but if others choose to do so, it's their choice and if they don't think such a vote was wasted, neither should anyone else.
Quite so. I always vote positively for the candidate that best represents my views, and don't consider this to be a wasted vote. If there is no such candidate I spoil my ballot. Of course 'forcing' people to vote for one of the two main parties, is often simply a negative vote. If you choose to cast a negative vote that's up to you, but you are wasting the chance to support policies you agree with. Naturally I support a more proportional voting system, which I consider would contribute to social cohesion by giving almost everyone a stake and a say in politics. |
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Feb 27, 2024 18:47:16 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention [Greater London]: LAB: 52% (-3) CON: 17% (-3) LDM: 10% (+1) GRN: 10% (+1) RFM: 10% (+6) Via @yougov, 12-19 Feb. Changes w/ 12-17 Oct. Since the last GE, that would be Lab +4 Con -15 LD -5 Green +7 Reform +9 from BP and on uniform swing would lead to seats won being LAB: 61 (+9) CON: 9 (-9) LDM: 5 (=) I get those numbers as well using modest tactical voting however the changes I have are: Lab GAINS: Uxbridge, Harrow East, Hendon, Chipping Barnet, Chingford, Eltham, Finchley, Cities of London, Chelsea Lib Dem GAINS: Wimbledon, Carshalton suggesting: Con -11, Lab +9, Lib Dem +2 |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 27, 2024 20:33:57 GMT
Well quite, personally I've never voted for a candidate for Parliament who I thought had the slightest chance of being elected. May do this year though. I've never voted for a successful candidate in a General Election - in 2005 I voted Conservative in Warwick & Leamington (lost by 266), and in each election since I voted Conservative in Leyton & Wanstead (lost by 8,583 in 2010, by 14,919 in 2015, by 22,607 in 2017 and 20,808 in 2019). Do I consider any of these votes "wasted"? No of course not, I made the choice that I wanted to at the time. And in 2024 I'll vote Reform - and that vote won't be "wasted" either. Vote for what you believe in, not what you're scared of. I'm the same, albeit from the opposite end of the political spectrum.
There are circumstances where I would consider a tactical vote. But those circumstances are where one candidate is blatantly unfit to hold any public office and it looks extremely likely that it will be very close between them and another candidate who is fit to hold public office and whose views aren't too extreme.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Feb 27, 2024 22:20:45 GMT
In my time as a member of the Electoral Reform Society, a lot of the discussion about different electoral systems talked about the number of “wasted” votes. A lot of PR advocates talk about votes being “wasted” in a sense which is defined mathematically (e.g. about 50% to 60% of votes under FPTP are wasted, pr 15% to 20% in STV) but such people often lose sight of the fact that votes are not necessarily “wasted” in a political sense, or that the voter himself doesn’t regard the vote as being wasted.
Or, more to the point , it never even occurs to many such people that there is such a distinction.
|
|
|
|
Post by batman on Feb 27, 2024 23:27:53 GMT
Absolutely, and it's their prerogative to use their votes in that way if they wish. Most of what we hear about so-called 'wasted' votes is (to use the site's word of the day) hogwash. It's patronizing, and probably wrong, to suggest that people voting for a hopeless candidate did so under the misapprehension that he or she stood a decent chance of winning. It's much likelier that these voters were fully aware of the realities of the election, but were unengaged by the main candidates and preferred to use their votes to make a statement. Personally, I wouldn't use my vote in this way; but if others choose to do so, it's their choice and if they don't think such a vote was wasted, neither should anyone else.
Well quite, personally I've never voted for a candidate for Parliament who I thought had the slightest chance of being elected. May do this year though. I have twice voted for the winning candidate in general elections, in 1992 in Newham NE & at the last election in Richmond Park. I am highly unlikely to be doing so at the forthcoming general election. |
|
|
|
Post by bridgyboy on Feb 28, 2024 11:54:23 GMT
Well quite, personally I've never voted for a candidate for Parliament who I thought had the slightest chance of being elected. May do this year though. I have twice voted for the winning candidate in general elections, in 1992 in Newham NE & at the last election in Richmond Park. I am highly unlikely to be doing so at the forthcoming general election. I have been voting since 1979 and I have never once voted for a winning candidate in the General Election. The only times my vote has counted for anything is when voting for MEP's under PR and the PPC. |
|
