Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Turnout for the UK election 2024

60% according to Yougov and Statista.

Haven't found anywhere suggesting higher.

So a majority and a mandate but only just.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

helenS · 36-40, F

Hard to believe that, under the British voting system, 34% of the vote share translate to 63% of the seats share. The only party where vote share and seats share are in approximate agreement are the Lib Dems (12% vs 11%).

View 1 more replies »

helenS · 36-40, F

@SunshineGirl I get that – tactical voting is all you can do, considering that quirky voting system: voting for Labour in your constituency, where Labor will definitely not win, would be the same as staying at home and not voting at all.
I wonder how many "tactical" voters there are in the UK?

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@helenS It's definitely 'quirky', but on the whole it has worked in the past to return decisive majorities for large parties with a broad base of support. A referendum in 2011 clearly rejected any sort of electoral reform. However, if that consensus is now breaking down with the Conservatives abandoning the centre ground and a multitude of smaller parties cropping up, it may be time to revisit the question.

supersnipe · 61-69, M

@helenS I can remember in 1974, when I was a politics student, at one of the general elections that year (there were two) the Labour party got 38%...but they only just squeaked into power. Nowadays, there is far more fragmentation. In my own constituency this time around, there were six names on the ballot paper. Only two had any real chance.

beckyromero · 36-40, F

Many times I've heard something like, "Well, if everyone had voted so and so would have won."

But the "vote" of people who don't vote doesn't belong to anyone.

It's no different on this side of "the pond."

Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M

@beckyromero Yes. Those in disagreement with anything on offer and so make the choice not to use their vote rather than register their contempt via a spoiled ballot

SW-User

If people choose not to vote, it’s up to them.

It’s pretty uniform across the country that people support the government, if they bothered to vote. And maybe somewhat lukewarm.

The mandate is particularly strong in Scotland and Wales. We want a United Kingdom.

Also a wider variety of views are expressed in the House of Commons, which reflects the country as a whole, many of which diverge. This can only enrich.

The proportion of Tory MPs, of various shades is also representative. They are a spent force at the moment, and unfit to govern.

View 6 more replies »

22Michelle · 61-69, T

@SunshineGirl And that's why the system stinks. People read into the number of seats gained or lost rather than the votes cast. Has Labour massively increased its vote share, no. However, their number of seats has. And as to Scotland the vote shares demonstrate that nothing has changed, but the seats gained and lost would deny that. And if the Labour Government acts as if the desire for independence has disappeared then it will if anything increase.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@22Michelle I'm well aware of what people read into the results, but an awful lot of people also appear to be ignorant of our electoral system, constitution, and its historical foundations. The media is often complicit (for example, the BBC always projecting the result of a local election in terms of national parties). By all means advocate for electoral reform, but it annoys me when people see things that are not there.

22Michelle · 61-69, T

@SunshineGirl And reading actual support into seats gained and lost is indeed seeing things thatcare not there.

Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M

The interesting thing for me is that it had never been so hard to qualify to vote this time around.

Conservative creating of voter I:D required to vote; so the question then arises as to how many couldn't vote and how many chose not to ?
The shifting of constituency boundaries; certain MP's standing down prior to voting; certain MP'S threatening to resign if....;continued bias in right-wing owned newspapers and the plethora of media outlets using ridiculous 'polls' (uncheckable by a good percentage of the public) quoted as if they were a good predictor of what was going to happen....

And I couldn't find statistics on the number of spoilt ballots.
Deliberate or unintentional.

View 2 more replies »

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@SW-User Hopefully someone will be able to produce statistical evidence from this election that it has had a negative impact.

I knew one of the tellers in the polling station and they didn't even bother looking at my documents . .

22Michelle · 61-69, T

@SunshineGirl My wife and I had our passports. The ladies on the desk looked at my wife's, but didnt bother with mine. One did remark that "nobody looks like their passport picture". My wife's is 9 years old.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@22Michelle All a bit pointless really. The only acceptable ID I had is an EU passport with a very dated photo. My work security card, which gives me access to some government buildings, has a much better likeness but is not on the list of accepted documents.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

It is what it is. We could make voting a legal obligation, as in Australia, but I do not see how 40% of the electorate spoiling their ballot papers or voting for "none of the above" makes the outcome any more democratic.

View 1 more replies »

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@gol979 I think if you re-read what I wrote you will find that I essentially agree with you . .

gol979 · 41-45, M

@SunshineGirl but you are floating making it "a legal obligation". Tbf i wouldnt be surprised if the powers that shouldnt be tried this. If they realise their game is up they will try and force it upon the plebs

Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M

@SunshineGirl It makes it more democratic because it would count as an official election statistic.
Political parties could spin the results any way they like but they can't deny that a proportion of the electorate found them unacceptable to vote for.

SW-User

The problem rests in the House of Lords. Here the conservative dinosaurs have the majority. The hereditary peers correctly should be abolished, but there are only a few of them. And as for the woke Church of England bishops, what are they doing there?

Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M

@SW-User The modern idea of an upper house is that it should be able to hold the government of the day to account for it's proposed changes to laws.

If you remove the voting rights from hereditary peers the question then becomes do you still allow Prime Ministers the right to send their choices of peers to the Lords or do you do away with their voting rights too ?

And if you do, what do you replace them with ?
There's been a lot of discussion about an elected second chamber.
So in this scenario who gets to stand ?
Who gets to elect ?
What would be the expectation with regard to their voting ?

SW-User

@Picklebobble2 Let’s see what these Tory peers do to block Starmer’s legislation. To be fair having Patrick Valance there with John Timpson, can only enrich the organisation. As will Penny Mordant, Michael Gove, and the unfortunate Jonathan Ashworth.

BadAssTunaBotHoe

They won with a smaller share of the vote than the Tories won with in 2010 which saw them requiring a coalition to gain a majority. They don't have a very strong mandate from the country.

Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M

@BadAssTunaBotHoe 'share of the vote' is largely irrelevant.
This is the argument i expect Farage to come out with in the coming days now he realises he didn't convince enough to vote for his party.
But it does highlight the same results would look very different under a P.R. system

BadAssTunaBotHoe

@Picklebobble2 Of course it's irrelevant under our current voting system and I'm not suggesting changing it either. However, it tells a story. If only 3 out of 10 of your friends liked you, you wouldn't feel very liked regardless of whether you got 7 birthday invites out of them.

gol979 · 41-45, M

They got 34% of 60%? People are starting to see through the pointless charade of voting.

And they have no mandate over me 😉

SW-User

@gol979 perhaps you should do your National Service.

gol979 · 41-45, M

@SW-User you mean you believed professional liar rishi that he was going to bring national service back lol. He was making these moves so that labour could take over management of the agenda.

Just vote harder.....everything will be ok if you put a tick in a box. Then you can sit on your hands for 4-5 years pretending you have done something heroic.

Believing that voting makes any difference, at this point, is like believing in santa claus.

And again, they dont have any mandate over me.

HotPizza71 · 51-55, M

But only a 2% gain from last time. Id be worried as the labour group,as next time I don't think Reform will do quite as well,leaving the door open for the conservatives to sneak back in ( personally,I reckon we will see two terms of labour at least)

Add a comment...