Thursday's Euro-election.

[Gordon]

Yes, what if you can't in good conscience vote for anyone?

Yep - 'none of the above' is a considered choice, and if that option isn't on the ballot paper then there is an argument for not voting at all.

[Harrowby Hall]

Hmmmm.....yes, of course I'll vote for the Tory enabling groupies.

I think that this kind of thinking ignores reality and is self-defeating.

The coalition appear to have been condemned by traditional LibDem supporters as an act of treason. It provided the LibDems with opportunities to do two main things:

1 Experience the reality of being the executive branch branch of government and - presumably - acquiring the skills, knowledge and understanding of its operation.

2 Exercise some moderation on the behaviour of the Conservative majority.

I would have thought that a party which supports proportional representation over FPTP would have realised that PR increases the likelihood of coalition ... but then all political parties have their boneheads ...

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, what if you can't in good conscience vote for anyone?

Then stand yourself - unless you couldn't in good conscience support yourself.

[ad_orientem]

Then stand yourself - unless you couldn't in good conscience support yourself.

Silly. Few are cut out for politics.

[jeremyp]

Yes a problem I'm having too. When I look on some website for voting tactically it advise me, being a supporter of Remain to vote for the Libdems.

Hmmmm.....yes, of course I'll vote for the Tory enabling groupies.

Labour, usually the home of my vote, is so hopelessly lost thanks to Corbyn on the question of Europe that I find myself without a decent resting place for my cross.

brexit makes it much easier for me to vote. Until we either leave the EU or cancel article 50, I can only vote for a mainstream party that wants us to stay in the EU and that means Lib Dems. The last general election was easy. The council elections were easy. The EU elections will be easy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Silly. Few are cut out for politics.

What on earth do you mean. People who stand for election are from all backgrounds and walks of life.

And if you don't want to (or can't be bothered) yourself then get a bit organised and find someone you think would be good and persuade them to stand.

Politics isn't a spectator sport.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yep - 'none of the above' is a considered choice, and if that option isn't on the ballot paper then there is an argument for not voting at all.

True - which is why my preference would be for compulsory voting and a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.

But frankly I don't believe most people who don't vote are doing so on a principled and considered 'none of the above' basis, but frankly because they cannot be arsed. And that being the case I don't see how those people have a leg to stand on if they don't like the person elected or think they are useful.

There are precious few elections where all options are equally bad - so if you don't actively like a particular candidate then vote for the least bad - vote to keep the person you want least out.

But don't fail to vote and then whinge from the sidelines.

[SteveH]

True - which is why my preference would be for compulsory voting and a 'none of the above' option on the ballot paper.

But frankly I don't believe most people who don't vote are doing so on a principled and considered 'none of the above' basis, but frankly because they cannot be arsed. And that being the case I don't see how those people have a leg to stand on if they don't like the person elected or think they are useful.

There are precious few elections where all options are equally bad - so if you don't actively like a particular candidate then vote for the least bad - vote to keep the person you want least out.

But don't fail to vote and then whinge from the sidelines.

Read the OP again.

[ad_orientem]

What on earth do you mean. People who stand for election are from all backgrounds and walks of life.

And if you don't want to (or can't be bothered) yourself then get a bit organised and find someone you think would be good and persuade them to stand.

Politics isn't a spectator sport.

Bollocks! Most people aren't privileged enough to risk so much or invest all their time on such things. Keeping a roof over your head and/or having a family is more than enough for most people. If people don't vote, for whatever reason, it's the fault of politics, not the individual and they have as much right to complain as anyone else.

[SteveH]

Bollocks! Most people aren't privileged enough to risk so much or invest all their time on such things. Keeping a roof over your head and/or having a family is more than enough for most people. If people don't vote, for whatever reason, it's the fault of politics, not the individual and they have as much right to complain as anyone else.

Hear hear!

[ad_orientem]

A none of the above option is a futile exercise.

[ProfessorDavey]

Bollocks! Most people aren't privileged enough to risk so much or invest all their time on such things.

FFS - you don't need to be privileged to stand for election. I know loads of people from all kinds of backgrounds who have stood, and plenty who have served, for example as councillors.

Keeping a roof over your head and/or having a family is more than enough for most people.

So why are there plenty of people - e.g. local councillors who hold down a job, deal with raising a family and also commit in their spare time to the work required as a councillor.

If people don't vote, for whatever reason, it's the fault of politics, not the individual and they have as much right to complain as anyone else.

Missing the point again - what I said was if you choose not to vote you have no right to complain at the outcome of the election.

[ProfessorDavey]

Read the OP again.

Just have done.

The OP is about people telling 'everyone that they've got to vote because thousands died for their right to do so'.

I have done no such thing. My point is that is you choose not to vote you forfeit the right to complain about who gets elected.

[ProfessorDavey]

Here is a little game for you all:

The is little doubt that Farage's Brexit party will gain the largest number of votes and seats on Thursday (results come out on Sunday). Farage will no doubt claim he has won and that it is a clear vindication for his brand of brexit.

But will the Brexit party get more or less votes than:

1. The 17,410,742 who voted for leave in the 2016 referendum

2. The 16,141,241 who voted to remain in the 2016 referendum

3. The 13,636,684 who voted Conservative in the 2017 General Election

4. The 12,878,460 who voted Labour in the 2017 General Election

5. The 6,083,303 who have signed the petition to revoke article 50 and remain in the EU

6. The 4,376,635 who voted UKIP in the 2014 European Parliament election

Given that only NS has provided as response - I guess I shoot stick my neck out.

My prediction is that Brexit will comfortable 'win' the EU election - by that I mean it will gain more votes and seats than any of the other parties.

In terms of total number of votes - I think Brexit will not quite beat the petition numbers, probably ending on or just under 6 million votes. That is based on them polling toward the higher end of the opinion poll predictions (so about 35%), but with turnout not markedly different to the 2014 35% level.

I'm not convinced that turnout will be markedly different to the recent run of 30-36% in EU elections. In fact if anything I suspect it may be lower for a range of reasons - not least the lack of any other elections today. My own experience this morning, voting at peak morning rush time of 8am was that the polling station was eerily quiet - I was the only voter there.

Anyhow on Sunday we will see and no doubt others will jump on me as my predictions are proved to be massively wrong!!!

Come on people have a pop at a prediction yourself on:

1. Total number of votes for the Brexit Party and
2. Turnout %

[Gordon]

It will be interesting to see what the regional variations are - the headline about Farage's party 'winning' overall may turn out to be true but the results may also show that enthusiasm for Brexit-supporting parties isn't uniform across the UK.

[Nearly Sane]

The turnout is incredibly hard to call. Last week I was thinking it had to be higher because of the overall interest but the last few days with the idea that today we could have the PM resign but the news agencies were unsure if they could report it on the day has boggled the tiny amount of unboggledness that I had left. So my guess is that the votes for the Brexit party 6.16 m, and turnout of 36.8%

[Udayana]

We've just been to vote, and there were a lot of voters there - there was even a queue (of 2) - usually we never see anyone else at the voting station.

So, not convinced that turnout will be the normal for EU elections. It seems that many Leavers will make a point of voting in this (useless if we leave) election, despite opposition to a peoples-vote/2nd ref.

Not sure that those that still prefer Remain will make the effort - although their votes could actually achieve a change in direction.
 

[SteveH]

I think turnout will be high, because it is widely seen as a surrogate second referendum.

[Roses]

I don't think the turnout will be that high, I have spoken to a few people who can't be bothered to vote. I passed the local primary school polling station on my early morning walk, there appeared to be very few people voting before going to work. When a general election is being held the place is teaming at that time of the morning.

[SteveH]

I don't think the turnout will be that high, I have spoken to a few people who can't be bothered to vote.

That is generalising from a small number of particular instances - and not randomly-chosen at that.

I passed the local primary school polling station on my early morning walk, there appeared to be very few people voting before going to work. When a general election is being held the place is teaming at that time of the morning.

People have until 10:00 tonight, and more and more people use postal votes.

[Roses]

That is generalising from a small number of particular instances - and not randomly-chosen at that.People have until 10:00 tonight, and more and more people use postal votes.

The turnout will be reported after our polls close, then we shall see if has been low or high.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think turnout will be high, because it is widely seen as a surrogate second referendum.

Money where your mouth is:

How high?

For context the last 3 EU elections (all held on the same day as local elections) had turnouts of: 35.6%, 34.7%, 38.5%, the most recent held in isolation, in other words no other election on the same day, had a turnout of 24% back in 1999.

[ProfessorDavey]

The turnout will be reported after our polls close, then we shall see if has been low or high.

Counting doesn't take place until Sunday evening, so I don't suppose we will know anything official on turnout until then.

[jeremyp]

FFS - you don't need to be privileged to stand for election.

No. You need £1,000, if you want to stand for parliament.

[ProfessorDavey]

No. You need £1,000, if you want to stand for parliament.

Actually it is £500 - For parliament yes - although this is of course just a deposit and is refunded if you get 5% of the votes cast and will be covered if you are linked to a party by that party mechanism. Even if not then surely you'd be able to fund-raise to cover this - it would be just £50 from each of your nominees.

But not for other levels of local government - to stand for your local council costs not a penny (not even an upfront deposit) - all you need is 10 people to sign your nomination paper. That's it.