You think it’s perfectly fine behaviour if the standing government goes out of it’s way to call an election at a time that is widely regarded to be a bad time for a large portion of the electorate to get to the polls?
People should absolutely register to vote. However the government should be called out for what is essentially just an attempt to make life difficult for a group of people who pretty significantly don’t tend to vote for them.
I think you’re exaggerating the impact this age group has on elections.
Most of them don’t even bother to go and vote. This is precisely why the government doesn’t do anything for them. It’s also not going to be a consideration for the timing of the election for the same reason.
A government shouldn’t disenfranchise voters. If someone’s not gonna vote, that’s entirely their choice, but no one else should make that choice for them.
No, it’s the government’s fault for aiming to schedule an election at a highly abnormal time, which would disproportionately affect students, with no reasoning that I’ve seen given for the choice. Based on that, I’m definitely going to blame the government for what appears to be a blatant attempt to reduce the number of student voters (a demographic which, despite relatively low turnout rates to begin with, are overwhelmingly more likely to vote for Labour)
There were October elections in 1924, 31, 51, 59, 64, 74. I’m sure the motives behind this aren’t good, but before Thatcher it was a common time to hold elections.
The 1931 election took place only two years after the previous election, because of a cabinet deadlock around spending cuts.
The 1951 election was a snap election, called only 20 months after the previous election, because Labour hoped to increase the slim majority they had (it was a hilariously bad move, they lost by a landslide)
I can’t find specific reasons why the 1959 election was in October, so I’ll count that as a mark in the “a normal October election” column. Ditto for 1964, which seems to have been in October because '59 one was, and there were leadership elections within both parties In 1963.
The 1974 election was the second one to be held that year and happened because the previous election resulted in a hung parliament
That being said, digging through the list of UK general elections for this comment made me realise that there’s so much disruption in the history of UK elections that it’s probably not useful for me to have used the word “abnormal”, because what even is normal when disruption seems to be the norm.
Despite this, I’m even more dubious of the choice of when an election will be held because it’s pretty clear that the precedent is that the timing is usually a deliberate and strategic choice - calling an election when you think you’re going to win is just standard practice, it seems. However, I still have beef with an October election if it happens, because in my opinion, that would be disproportionately affecting a particular voting demographic in a way that feels undemocratic beyond what is usual for the (sometimes slimy) tactic of strategic timing
(Edit: though also, I want to be clear, thank you for your comment — I learnt a lot while building my reply, which I appreciate. I hope I do not come across as overly adversarial)
I love how it’s always the government’s fault if people can’t be arsed to register to vote.
It literally takes five minutes. If you were actually bothered, you would make sure to do it.
You think it’s perfectly fine behaviour if the standing government goes out of it’s way to call an election at a time that is widely regarded to be a bad time for a large portion of the electorate to get to the polls?
People should absolutely register to vote. However the government should be called out for what is essentially just an attempt to make life difficult for a group of people who pretty significantly don’t tend to vote for them.
I think you’re exaggerating the impact this age group has on elections.
Most of them don’t even bother to go and vote. This is precisely why the government doesn’t do anything for them. It’s also not going to be a consideration for the timing of the election for the same reason.
you just went through all three of these stages in the space of two comments good job
A government shouldn’t disenfranchise voters. If someone’s not gonna vote, that’s entirely their choice, but no one else should make that choice for them.
Last election In my constituency the right where complainingthat Labour won because it was a GOOD time for the students to vote.
We have 3 universities.
The population of the city significantly drops during university holidays.
So yes, it can make quite a big difference.
No, it’s the government’s fault for aiming to schedule an election at a highly abnormal time, which would disproportionately affect students, with no reasoning that I’ve seen given for the choice. Based on that, I’m definitely going to blame the government for what appears to be a blatant attempt to reduce the number of student voters (a demographic which, despite relatively low turnout rates to begin with, are overwhelmingly more likely to vote for Labour)
There were October elections in 1924, 31, 51, 59, 64, 74. I’m sure the motives behind this aren’t good, but before Thatcher it was a common time to hold elections.
At least 4 out of 6 of those elections happened because of abnormal circumstances.
The 1924 election was because of a vote of no confidence that triggered an early election
The 1931 election took place only two years after the previous election, because of a cabinet deadlock around spending cuts.
The 1951 election was a snap election, called only 20 months after the previous election, because Labour hoped to increase the slim majority they had (it was a hilariously bad move, they lost by a landslide)
I can’t find specific reasons why the 1959 election was in October, so I’ll count that as a mark in the “a normal October election” column. Ditto for 1964, which seems to have been in October because '59 one was, and there were leadership elections within both parties In 1963.
The 1974 election was the second one to be held that year and happened because the previous election resulted in a hung parliament
That being said, digging through the list of UK general elections for this comment made me realise that there’s so much disruption in the history of UK elections that it’s probably not useful for me to have used the word “abnormal”, because what even is normal when disruption seems to be the norm.
Despite this, I’m even more dubious of the choice of when an election will be held because it’s pretty clear that the precedent is that the timing is usually a deliberate and strategic choice - calling an election when you think you’re going to win is just standard practice, it seems. However, I still have beef with an October election if it happens, because in my opinion, that would be disproportionately affecting a particular voting demographic in a way that feels undemocratic beyond what is usual for the (sometimes slimy) tactic of strategic timing
(Edit: though also, I want to be clear, thank you for your comment — I learnt a lot while building my reply, which I appreciate. I hope I do not come across as overly adversarial)
Does it take five minutes for the council to verify thousands of registration forms?