I’m not sure whether the writer means vote or don’t vote. And I’m not sure that it’s correct that the turn-out will be low. If anything, this is another of those elections where suffering people will be more inclined to go out and vote to try to change the party that’s been in power for too long, rather than sitting back and letting them get on with things as they did last election because their standard of living was still high.

If we’re all fed up with politicians, bankers and people telling us what to do, surely the normal response would be to get out and vote in the hope of getting rid of them.

Sitting at home and wasting your vote seems to me to be a strange way to change things.

what I will concede is that the British generally regard the country as having three “main” parties and the vast majority do stick to them at election time. Maybe a little investigation by people into what other parties offer and a subsequent vote for them in large enough numbers would be a way of changing the status-quo. But for the majority, when the moment comes and they need to place a cross, do they think of change or do they feel that choosing a “main” party would be the only way to block the other parties from forming the next government and that to vote otherwise would be a wasted vote and may leave the door open to the other large party?

Smaller parties are also to blame, as they tend to electioneer on the basis of a headline policy and thus appeal only to a narrow wedge of voters with specific interests. If they had manifestos that covered ALL subjects, not just environment or immigration or anti-EU,then they may become attractive to a greater number of people and have consequent success.

Report abuse