Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » More of those who actually vote in local and general elections
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » More of those who actually vote in local and general elections went for REMAIN not LEAVE
Prof John Curtice
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
REMAIN 48%
Disengaged or disenfranchised?
Everyone was equal in the referendum.
2015 66.4%
2010 65.1%
2005 61.4%
2001 59.4%
1997 71.3%
EURef 2016 = 72.2%
Still bollocks, mind you.
Scotland is the obvious example, but there are lots of others.
I don't know what the average turnout at locals is, from my area I'm guessing around 35-40% in a good year, so they cannot even get the generally engaged to vote in the damn things. What chance the barely to not engaged?
"They're all the same".
I doubt it. Maybe a trickle, but never the tsunami.
It was the referendum that engaged so many. The feeling that every vote counted.
They see manifestos that push what appear to be barely differentiated key policy areas.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/09/need-brexit-hard-us-soft/
The next political tsunami will be felt as the weight of the contradictions of Brexit breaks over the entire political class.
Bottom line, I think we get politicians that we deserve, and while I'll hold politicians' failure at their door, I don't view it in isolation when, from what I've seen of local politicians, a great many try very hard to speak and act for their constituents, and get a lot of contempt for it from some of those they try to assist and reach out to the most. I don't weep for the politicians - they volunteered for it, and there are attendant privileges and benefits to compensate, but our engagement problem is not from lack of trying from many.
In 1964, seats like all the new town/London overspill seats were solid for Labour, as were the mining seats.
By contrast, Manchester Withington, Liverpool Wavertree, Leeds NE, Bristol West, Sheffield Hallam, Brighton Pavillion, Streatham, Birmingham Handsworth and Edgbaston, Glasgow Hillhead and Cathcart, Edinburgh West, Cambridge were solidly Conservative.
10% of the population is not going to achieve much, even if they had one common policy. In practice their desires are often contradictory even within one voter. Vote for lower taxes, more spending and a balanced budget for example.
I don't necessarily think it would be a "right wing" movement at all, either.
The politically disengaged were motivated by something worth voting for, perhaps the realisation that their vote does matter and can make a difference will encourage them to vote again at the next general election, personal I doubt they will, or at least far fewer of them.
It's widely held within the climatological community that global warming is happening and is problematic. It's also widely held within the UKIP membership that global warming is bollocks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39561102
Russia claim they hit only 6 MIG-23s.
Even if the Russian claim is true, and not the larger American numbers, it is a significant blow to Syria's already-reduced air assets.
On topic, it demonstrates that a reasonable proportion of people who don't vote can be motivated to vote given the right circumstance and topic.
Take Scotland
2010 Turnout 63.8% (2.4m votes)
2014 Turnout 84.6% (3.6m votes)
2015 Turnout 71.1% (2.9m votes)
2016 Turnout 67.2% (2.7m votes)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_04_17_garden_bridge_report.pdf
Has our very own Charles commented on this report yet?
UKIP have not been able to do this, mainly because Labour under Corbyn have been sanguine or indifferent towards Brexit. And Brexit doesn't look particularly under threat at the moment.
The probability is that they just go back to not voting. From my own experience (as someone who actually went out to campaign in the referendum for remain) I don't believe that there is much coherance in the way this group of people think. People had lots of underlying reasons for wanting to vote. They will be as sceptical about an 'anti career politician party/patriotic popular front' as they are about the other parties.
All of this would be very different had either a) remain won, or b) Brexit was being delayed or fudged.
On the other hand the experience of the referendum will motivate a small amount of young people who voted remain to remember to vote, which is likely to benefit the lib dems.
Contemporaneous debates show that there was a very clear understanding about the political nature of the project. Ted Heath's core public arguments when negotiating the treaties and before the first referendum were about how economics were secondary to the idea of going beyond the nation state into a new form of organisation.
It captures the loss of money, the recovered autonomy and the regained electoral accountability in one handy caption that is still being repeated ten months later.
I regard that as a benchmark.
We've been through this before and you're wrong.
I was there, I was a strong Harold supporter, pro-Europe, and very interested in politics. When close union was brought up, it was strongly condemned as being la-la-land by the media and mainstream. The No group was continually belittled as being left-wing loons and conspiracy theorists. Even I, as a Yesser thought the campaign one-sided.
Most people have little interest in politics, but it doesn't mean they don't have strong opinions. And the Old Gits have long memories. They don't like being lied to.
We were told that we retained a veto for everything, so that was all right.
This government made the mistake of surrendering to democracy. Live with it.
I'm unsure your comment is correct even if you say 'Sentient entities cannot be our slaves'. Sentience in sci-fi is a different context to sentience when defined as the ability to feel.
As ever, the definition of terms matters.
https://twitter.com/cllrruthrosenau/status/851146711074471937