Tactical voting is not about single votes or voters. It's about a portion of the electorate in a constituency looking at what is in front of them and concluding that one of the two front runners would be catastrophic, the other would be OK and accepting that the rest, no matter how much you like their policies will not triumph in that seat.
I agree that's true at the moment, but I don't think that will be the case going forward. There's evidence that it happens in not insignificant amounts so it's not about single votes in isolation, it's about lots of single votes changing the state of play. There are a number of constituencies where it comes down to single figures and cumulatively a not huge number of votes can change things.
Many of the the UK's constituencies are two horse races, granted there are some three way marginals and a few with other funky arithmetic, but the notion that it's everything to play for is bananas.
Interesting, did any of the other parties attend?
Project Fear strikes again!
Labour spending ... borrowing billions and billions. Bankrupting the country and burdening the next generation with debt for years and years.
Labour spending ... borrowing billions and billions. Bankrupting the country and burdening the next generation with debt for years and years.
There's also the fact that this Labour government isn't made up of the same people in previous governments, and Labour want to scrap tuition fees and offer paid time off for studying. But yes please continue attacking Labour, it gives me the impression that there aren't any good Conservative policies worth sharing.
"Applications have dipped only three times - on each occasion when fees were introduced or increased - but they have always recovered.
And one of the main arguments in favour of fees has been that such wide access is unsustainable unless students make a contribution to the cost.
In the early 1980s only about one in six young people could expect to go to university - now, for girls at least, it's over half."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-40511184
Assumption on my part you mean Higher, not Further Education. It was the coalition that dismissed the EMA for FE.
When introduced by Labour tuition fees were £1000, upped to £3000 in 2004 and then the cap was famously tripled to £9000 by the aforementioned coalition in 2010.
Just popping some facts on those rather vague bones.
Sorry, I wasn't disagreeing I was trying to add to the point.
No; Labour and Green were the only parties that attended, although besides the Conservatives and two independent candidates, they are the only other parties standing in the Forest of Dean. The Liberal Democrats have pulled out of our constituency due to a Remain pact with the Green Party, and the Brexit Party have pulled out of our constituency due to them agreeing not to stand in Conservative seats.
"
Nowhere in Matt's post did he say he trusted them 100%, just that they said their manifestos are fully costed. You've said your son is an example of why 16 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is a ridiculous argument as by that logic, adults shouldn't be allowed to vote either. Just look at how many people didn't know how tax bands worked when Labour said they would raise income taxes.Just because someone sits on a stall @Matt N in front of you and proclaims all their manifesto commitments are costed (through borrowing) does not make them honest or trustworthy.
For instance Labour have this hidden "financial transactions tax" in their maifesto that will affect people on pensions most since most pensions are invested in the financial services industry, this is deep in their manifesto that will result in pensioners who have a pension of more than £20k paying an extra £1000 a year in tax, now you could easily argue that the transaction tax is payable by the pension fund manager and this is correct, however if anybody considers for one second that the pension fund manager won't pass on that tax to you in charges they either don't understand how the financial services industry works, or are delusional.
That's just one example of "honest" Labour.
As for the greens, don't get me started on them, if their driving force was honestly for a cleaner planet they'd be campaigning for our energy needs to be met by nuclear power which is 91% efficient but no they want us to spend billions of £££ that we don't have on an inherently inefficient wind and solar power production that is not only less than one third of the efficiency of nuclear but more damaging to the local Eco system (my friend works on a wind farm and his first job each morning is to go round and pick up all the birds killed by the turbines), or other "green" energy such as electric cars that have aweful efficiency and have a very dirty manufacturing process compared to their ICE counterparts. Oh and they wouldn't keep banging on about eliminating carbon dioxide emissions because every first grader knows we need that otherwise all the trees, grass and other vegetation die, which in turn means we die because that's how we get our oxygen.
So you'll excuse me that I'd rather cut off my own arm with a razor blade than consider voting for either of these delusional liars
Of course, this is not to say any of the other parties are any more honest, in fact your reaction to them is a fine example of why 16 years olds cannot ever be allowed to vote, no life experience is the saying I think, my son is nearing 16 and I can categorically state without any hesitation he is neither experienced or mature enough to vote in an election, and neither are any of his classmates either.
