The only part of that you got right, is that I hate the Tories. Boundary changes do help the Tories, but by default, rather than intent, as the Boundary Commission is politically neutral by design.

You say that like it's a surprise - if signing up young voters would help the Tories, then Labour would be just as lackadaisical.

Nothing so dramatic, I suspect - the Tories will just remind their own supporters how hard Corbyn will hit them in the pocket.

It should have been the duty of the government to ensure as many people as possible registered. That's why I said "the government" at the start of my post, not the Tories.

This is an oldish article, but it is from your beloved Guardian, so I thought you might give it the benefit of the doubt...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/realit...ourndary-reform

Whose beloved Guardian? I very rarely read it these days - as I have stated several times before.

 

That article doesn't take differential turnout into account. In general, turnout is higher in safe Tory seats than in safe Labour seats. In general, Tories in safe Labour seats are more likely to vote than Labour voters in safe Tory seats.

 

In addition, things have changed since the article was written. In the elections from 1997 to 2005 Labour were better at targeting than the Tories. After 2005 the tories targeted seats more effectively. On a uniform swing, if Labour and the Tories got the same vote she, the Tries would win more seats. If the start point is the 2015 election, the difference is a lot greater. Of course, if Labour, Tories and Lib Dems all got the same vote share, the Lib Dems would still come a distant third in number of seats won.

It should have been the duty of the government to ensure as many people as possible registered. That's why I said "the government" at the start of my post, not the Tories.

 

Unfortunately gov'ts tend to shirk on things that are simply moral requirements rather than legal ones, especially when there is no political advantage to them in doing so.

 

 

Whose beloved Guardian? I very rarely read it these days - as I have stated several times before.

 

That article doesn't take differential turnout into account. In general, turnout is higher in safe Tory seats than in safe Labour seats. In general, Tories in safe Labour seats are more likely to vote than Labour voters in safe Tory seats.

 

In addition, things have changed since the article was written. In the elections from 1997 to 2005 Labour were better at targeting than the Tories. After 2005 the tories targeted seats more effectively. On a uniform swing, if Labour and the Tories got the same vote she, the Tries would win more seats. If the start point is the 2015 election, the difference is a lot greater. Of course, if Labour, Tories and Lib Dems all got the same vote share, the Lib Dems would still come a distant third in number of seats won.

 

I was attempting levity iro The Guardian, as some posters here seem to treat it almost as gospel. ;)

 

IMO tactical voting has a far bigger effect than differential turnout - strange the article didn't make a big deal of it, as it almost invariably works against the Tories. :unsure:

 

There's also the issue of parties piling up votes in safe seats which would be more effective in marginals - that is one area where boundary reviews could be especially beneficial to Labour.

 

Also, increasing voter registration is only part of the story - getting more people to register means little if they still don't bother voting. A side issue is - why does turnout increase with age? Surely there must've been surveys done as to why so many younger people don't bother to vote?

Young people are more concerned with getting a job and having a laugh and discovering themselves with hopes and ambitions, and they don't see sticking a cross in a box as affecting their life in any way. That's the way it was when I was young and that's how it is now.

 

Old people are motivated by hanging onto what they have got, and rose-tinted memories of how marvellous the world was when they were young (it wasn't, all it was is they were young and personally having much more fun than they have being old and watching everyone that they knew die and have ill-health).

 

That's life in a nutshell, always was and always will be.

 

The key part to take out of the article is the average age of people becoming more likely to vote Tory than Labour: 47. Piss off the younger potential voters and the older folk get outnumbered if they turn up to vote. Older voters always turn up regardless, even if the Tories have to bus them there.

Old people are motivated by hanging onto what they have got, and rose-tinted memories of how marvellous the world was when they were young (it wasn't, all it was is they were young and personally having much more fun than they have being old and watching everyone that they knew die and have ill-health).

 

That's life in a nutshell, always was and always will be.

 

That#s also why people are more likely to turn Conservative as they get older.

 

The key part to take out of the article is the average age of people becoming more likely to vote Tory than Labour: 47. Piss off the younger potential voters and the older folk get outnumbered if they turn up to vote. Older voters always turn up regardless, even if the Tories have to bus them there.

 

That average age will have to rise a bit higher than 47 for Labour to win, though.

 

I suspect older people are more likely to use postal votes too, since it may be harder for them to get to polling stations.

 

That#s also why people are more likely to turn Conservative as they get older.

That average age will have to rise a bit higher than 47 for Labour to win, though.

 

I suspect older people are more likely to use postal votes too, since it may be harder for them to get to polling stations.

 

Read the article - it used to be 34, now it's 47, so that tendency is changing. You are also assuming that tomorrow's 60-year-olds will own their own places and have a comfortable pension.

 

Those are bold assumptions. If the young generation feels they have been tossed aside in favour of comfortable old people and never get out of debt even in retirement (which will be 70 by the time they get there, not 55 as some on here seem to be living the dream) only an idiot would assume they will vote for a party who has hammered them all their life. I know I'm still bitter about being abandoned, more or less, in my youth by the Tory Thatcher era, and I will never forgive or forget what they did and have ended up doing to our society (even if Thatcher was a Remainer).

Read the article - it used to be 34, now it's 47, so that tendency is changing.

 

The number changed, but that doesn't necessarily indicate a trend - it could just as easily fall back.

 

I know I'm still bitter about being abandoned, more or less, in my youth by the Tory Thatcher era, and I will never forgive or forget what they did and have ended up doing to our society (even if Thatcher was a Remainer).

 

But that is pretty much my position too, why is why I hate the Tories.

 

The lower turnout among the young is a relatively recent phenomenon, one which went into reverse at the last election.

 

I'm not aware of any serious research into why this has happened although I do have a theory. In many areas of life we now have much more choice than was the case a few decades ago. There was a time when you could only choose from a few brand of tea or coffee. Now there are whole supermarket aisles devoted to them. People can choose a brand of tea or coffee that suits them almost perfectly. That isn't the case with political parties. There is a short list to choose from and an even shorter list of parties in any given constituency with any chance of winning. Because young people cannot find a party with which they agree on almost everything, they don't vote for anyone.

 

That is, of course, just a theory. It could be completely wrong.

The lower turnout among the young is a relatively recent phenomenon, one which went into reverse at the last election.

 

I'm not aware of any serious research into why this has happened although I do have a theory. In many areas of life we now have much more choice than was the case a few decades ago. There was a time when you could only choose from a few brand of tea or coffee. Now there are whole supermarket aisles devoted to them. People can choose a brand of tea or coffee that suits them almost perfectly. That isn't the case with political parties. There is a short list to choose from and an even shorter list of parties in any given constituency with any chance of winning. Because young people cannot find a party with which they agree on almost everything, they don't vote for anyone.

 

That is, of course, just a theory. It could be completely wrong.

 

It's an interesting theory, but with one flaw - the lack of choice applies equally to voters of all ages, but it doesn't affect age turnout equally.

It's an interesting theory, but with one flaw - the lack of choice applies equally to voters of all ages, but it doesn't affect age turnout equally.

But older voters are used to having a limited choice at elections.

But older voters are used to having a limited choice at elections.

 

But that doesn't mean they like it - look how many jumped at the chance to vote UKIP, especially in the Euro elections under PR...

But that doesn't mean they like it - look how many jumped at the chance to vote UKIP, especially in the Euro elections under PR...

I didn't say they liked it, just that they were used to it and accept it.

I didn't say they liked it, just that they were used to it and accept it.

 

They might be used it it, but if they didn't accept it, how could we even know?

I presume turnout can only be the main indicator (be it turning out for positive reasons FOR a party, or for negative reasons to get shot of a party in power....) and sometimes a leader of a party grabs the national mood leading to a landslide victory.

 

Till they inevitably bollocks it all up, at any rate.