Current talk is that the Tories should join with Reform

But I am not sure that in 4 years time people are going to think oh let's vote for 'centrist' tories. I mean they could also decide that in four years time they want a socialist revolution but there isnt much evidence for that currently either.

It’s opinion Galaxy. I gave mine, you gave yours. neither of us is right or wrong, and we won’t know for four and a half years what other people decide is the best party, in their opinion, to vote for.

Well yes that's what is happening, I am disagreeing with you, you are disagreeing with me. It's fine.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Why would Reform want the One Nation wets? No thanks. This ‘broadchurch’ Tory appeals to neither man nor beast.

Anyway Reform have done so well in Wales taken a Labour council. First time NOT Labour in 107 years apparently!

Why would Reform want the One Nation wets?

They wouldn't - that's the point.

Do you think every Tory-voter is a closet Reform voter?

I think some labour voters are closet reform voters

gangy5

Why should Reform save the Tories. Whatever we think of Reform -- the one good thing they can aim to do is to annihilate them.

"Current talk is that the Tories should join with Reform"

Although there have been discussions and calls for a merger or alliance from some individuals within both parties, there has been no formal agreement or announcement so I wonder who you feel is making such comments.

Is there a credible argument for the destruction of the Conservative Party? Presumably this would be on on the basis that a small proportion of voters may see such an outcome as positive.

Arguments for the destruction of any political party typically depends on the individual perspectives and values of the person suggesting it. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to why this would be a "good thing".

I think it would be a bad thing.
Why taint Reform with the very unpopular Tories? Their 14 years hasn’t been good. In fact t Labour got the bounce as the electorate were voting for Anyone But Tory so we got Starmer.

Forget about all tis moving the 'deckchairs on the Titanic talk' about which party will be where. The big worry for the next election is whether many people will turn out to vote.

Election turnout at most election, until 1992was 75% or over. Since then turnout has fallen to 59-60% in the last two elections and I suspect it will be even lower at the next election.

When do all these party shenanigans become entirely irrelevant to the majoirty of the electorate because they will simply say ' a plague on all your parties' and not bother to vote.

What would have been the government if the 15-20% more voters had turned out at the election to make the turnout equal to the turnout in 1992.

As I said all these party rows/negotiations etc etc, are utterly irrelevant if all parties do not stop arguing about deckchairs and start acting like adults and working out how to stop the electorate greeting the whole bang lot with contempt and leaving them to run their silly old elections with fewer and fewer voters, until turnout drops to under 50% - and then where lies our democracy?

A “week” is a long time in politics , speculating what the issues will be in 4 yrs is pointless, the voters wanted change and they got Starmer who most dont like either. Farage is very divisive, he doesn’t act as a party leader, it’s all about him personally, Reform with a credible leader and appealing policies would be a threat.

I’m sure most that voted Reform didn’t have a clue about policies other than stopping migrants, I doubt that the migrant issue will have disappeared in 4 yrs time.

David49

Too early to tell just what will happen to Reform, no real leader, Farage is only interested in his own personal agenda, they could be a force in the next election or just a damp squib.

Reading about their donors, someone is certainly going to have access to shedloads of cash! Not quite as much as Trump, but still worryingly high!

David49

A “week” is a long time in politics , speculating what the issues will be in 4 yrs is pointless, the voters wanted change and they got Starmer who most dont like either. Farage is very divisive, he doesn’t act as a party leader, it’s all about him personally, Reform with a credible leader and appealing policies would be a threat.

I’m sure most that voted Reform didn’t have a clue about policies other than stopping migrants, I doubt that the migrant issue will have disappeared in 4 yrs time.

I agree, but then again, with a different order and credible policies it would be an entirely different party 😂😂😂😂

I am not totally in agreement. The reason being I was very annoyed that they did not join forces before the election. If they had we would not be run by the idiotic Labour party now. I feel they had their chance and did not take it.

M0nica

In most democracies, the young tend to vote less.

Sophie Hale, Principal Economist at the Resolution Foundation, said:

“The Conservatives have increasingly become the party of the old rather than the rich, while Labour have become the party of the young, rather than the poor.

“But a new age divide is emerging in Britain. Young non-graduates and non-homeowners, who tend to be poorer than the average millennial, are bucking the national swing towards Labour and are instead less likely to vote at all.

“The continuing fall in turnout among less well-off millennials is worrying because not voting in elections can become readily embedded in people’s behaviour. It also risks causing further neglect of their needs, as politicians focus their efforts on those who do turn out to vote.”

That last sentence - politicians focusing their efforts on those who are likely to vote; doesn't this mean that 'one-nation' type political thinking is or would be more effective than ostensibly single-issue, 'populist' politics?

Immigration, whether via regular channels or small boats, is important, but while all parties are being forced to focus on it - does it matter as much to young graduates (for example) unable to find work, or those entering the job-market for the first time only to discover that their paltry wages won't allow them to afford the high rents being charged?

So young people are doubly disadvantaging themselves by not voting.

I think young people are less inclined to vote than older folk is that they don't remember the war and the aftermath of the war when having the right leaders and right policy was a pressing matter of life or death.

I doubt anyone under 70 remembers the war and the decade after it. I was born in 1943, which makes me 82 this year, I do not remember the war and, barely, the restrictions on life in the decade after it, but by 1955, the boom years had started and by 1957 the Prime MInister, Harold Macmillan could say 'We have never had it so good'.

Election turnover began to fall in 1997, where the youngest voters would have been born in 1979, the baby boomers children.

Perhaps the low voter turnout is the price we pay for a long period of peace in this country, somehow how we are governed and by who, dosn't matter.

Churchview

I think young people are less inclined to vote than older folk is that they don't remember the war and the aftermath of the war when having the right leaders and right policy was a pressing matter of life or death.

I would have thought it's because the have very full lives. They are in the "striving" part of their working lives, trying to have a partner and possibly children.

The older vote is obviously going to be different. We are simply at a different stage in life - not better or more knowledgeable (as often proved on GN).

If people are very busy they can always vote by post, as my son and daughter in law do in case work commitments on the day prevent them from getting to the polling station. There is no excuse for not voting, other than inertia.

I would have thought it's because the have very full lives. They are in the "striving" part of their working lives, trying to have a partner and possibly children.

That didn't stop us voting when we were at that stage of our lives. Our demographic have been lifelong habitual voters. We were brought up believing the importance of having the vote.

not better or more knowledgeable

I don't know. We seemed to be quite politically active, as were our seniors. Aldermaston marches, Greenham Common, Grovesnor Square, those pointless university sit ins, anti Thatcher protests, anti Iraq war.

There was always seemed to be something political going on which embraced a wider range of topics than self interested causes, like the farmers 'protests'.

Not that I have any explanation at all for the failure of younger people to vote these days.

I agree the ever shrinking voting figures are a great danger to our democracy. One of the reasons to me is that the celeb culture has afflicted politics. The press and SM often inclines towards what I would describe political gossip on individuals rather than policy.
Day after day of negative pulling or cutting down of individuals in the MSM sticks in peoples minds rather than information leading to policy discussion that actually really affects peoples lives.

You hear so many say, "I don't listen to the news, it's too negative, they're all the same" The space is left open for "solve it all" sloganising. people either believe these short cuts or turn away.

I'm not sure how we can turn the tide for young people to vote, but its much needed.

I think young people may do politics in a different way to other generations, so they may not be involved in party politics as such but more issue based activism. It was later in life that I became involved in traditional party politics but some of the things I was involved in when young were 'political'.
As far as I am aware the younger generation are quite avid consumers of some of the issue based podcasts for example.

Barleyfields

If people are very busy they can always vote by post, as my son and daughter in law do in case work commitments on the day prevent them from getting to the polling station. There is no excuse for not voting, other than inertia.

They can and many do.

We have the choice whether to vote or not. I don't think Britain has yet got to the point of marching people to the polling station. Not voting is a statement in its own right.

I don’t agree that not voting is a statement. There is usually a reasonable choice of parties from which to choose.

Then we have to agree to disagree Barleyfields. I would personally hope I could make the decision not to vote if we got to a one party state situation.

A one party state? What voting would be needed in such a situation?

I agree with Barleyfields.

Maybe not voting is a statement of 'I-can't-be-bothered'. With the justification of "they're all the same anyway".

Of course the young might be disillusioned, but if anyone is going to change the political climate, it's them. They have youth on their side and they can get involved at a local level or become part of a larger activism.

There is no excuse for not voting, other than sickness or accident... even if - to borrow from Mercutio in Romeo & Juliet - you only write "A plague o' both your houses!" (or similar). That's more of a statement than not voting at all.