Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Election 2015: What are the political parties promising cycling in their election manifestos?

Manifesto commitments examined

The two largest political parties, Labour and the Conservatives, have both released their election manifestos, as have the Green Party and Plaid Cymru. Time, then, to take a look at what the parties are offering cyclists. We'll add other parties as they launch their manifestos, with the Lib-Dems due to announce theirs tomorrow.

This general election has seen a flurry of activity from cycling advocates determined to pin political parties down on their commitment to cycling, a campaign which saw the UK's first "Big Cycle Debate" in March, organised by the UK Cycling Alliance.

For the first time the UK also has a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, making it a legal obligation that parliament set objectives for cycling and allocate money to achieve those goals. It is widely believed a minimum of £10 per head per year is needed to increase cycling levels, rising to £20 as more people take to two wheels. At present spending on cycling is around £2 per head per year.

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said at the start of the year it would be "suicide" for political parties not to include funding commitments for cycling in their manifestos, but how many have heeded his advice?

Conservatives

The Tories this week announced £200m for cycling, part of its infrastructure pledges for "more and faster trains, more roads and cycle routes". However, as Chris Boardman has pointed out, this equates to less than £1 per person per year.

The Conservative manifesto statement on cycling says: "We want to double the number of journeys made by bicycle and will invest over £200m to make cycling safer so we reduce the number of cyclists and other road users killed or injured on our roads every year."

However, it does not make clear a time scale for this funding (it is assumed over five years) and the figure is a tiny proportion of the Tories' planned £100bn infrastructure spend over the next parliament including, it says, "the biggest investment in rail since Victorian times, and the most extensive improvements to our roads since the 1970s". 

Among its £15bn roads fund the Conservatives will spend £500m on making almost every car and van zero-emission by 2050, and "provide enough funding to fix around 18 million potholes nationwide between 2015 and 2021" while adding 1,300 extra lane miles to the roads.

Also potentially important for cycling the Tories will also "devolve far-reaching powers over economic development, transport and social care to large cities which choose to have elected mayors."

Both Labour and the Tories will allow local councils to retain 100% growth in business rates, good news for those investing in cycle infrastructure, which has been shown to increase retail sales by up to 47%.  

Green Party 

Perhaps unsurprisingly the Greens are keen as mustard on the bike, and say they would spend £30 per head per year on walking and cycling.

The Green Party manifesto says "we need to rescue our towns and cities from traffic and turn them back into places where we want to be. The Green Party will support an [Welsh-style] Active Travel Bill for England in order to achieve this."

It says it will "make streets healthy and safe places for people to cycle and walk and for children to play, while building physical activity into their daily journeys."

Cycling is second in the party's transport hierarchy, below walking and disabled access to transport, and above public transport. Walking, cycling and public transport, it says, should be taken into account in all planning decisions, and the different modes linked to one another.

On-street parking spaces, say the Greens, should be reallocated to pedestrians and cyclists, with pavement parking eliminated altogether, while cycle parking should be provided wherever there is demand, including secure cycle parking on residential streets.

The Greens also support presumed liability of motor vehicle drivers when pedestrians and cyclists are injured. They would require all newly manufactured lorries to be fitted with "best practice technology to make sure that drivers are fully aware of the presence of all pedestrians and cyclists". As well as improving rail freight to reduce lorries on the roads the Greens would  incentivise consolidation of deliveries to encourage more cargo bike use. 

Key to encouraging cycling for transport, the Green manifesto says, is reducing the distance people need to travel for work, leisure and shopping, and switching more journeys away from the car. It says local government transport departments need to work with health departments to promote active travel.

Labour Party

Labour's 86 page manifesto mentions cycling twice, and at the time of writing there's no funding attached.
Labour says: "We will support long-term investment in strategic roads, address the neglect of local roads, and promote cycling."

The second mention of cycling relates to devolution of power to English city and county regions, the £30bn English Devolution Act. Labour says: "This will include control over local transport systems so that in future, local bodies can integrate trains, buses, trams and cycling into a single network".

However, when asked for clarification on funding, Labour's Plan for Cycling was revealed.
It says "Britain’s roads are for everyone. Labour wants to give everyone the choice to cycle and walk safely on them."

Noting the environmental, economic and health benefits of cycling, and the potential to reduce congestion, it says: "Cycling and walking should be the default option for short journeys, but political leadership - at national and level - is required to improve conditions for ‘active travel’ on roads across the UK."

It says Labour will end stop start cycle funding and "make promoting walking and cycling a priority in government", adding this will be a cross departmental issue.

"Labour will deliver the Infrastructure Bill commitment to set out an ambitious and long-term Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy in Government by Summer 2016. We will create a new, cross-Government Cyclist and Pedestrians’ Advisory Board to oversee this strategy and put active travel central to transport policy."

These are not in the manifesto though, so are arguably not so much a pledge as an aspiration.

Labour says it has signed up to the government's spending plans on cycling for 2015-20, which includes the existing cycle city ambition fund money and roads investment strategy.

Liberal Democrats

The Lib Dems were the first to sign up to the CTC's Vote Bike campaign this week, and earlier this year the first to adopt recommendations in the pivotal Get Britain Cycling report. These both include pledges to spend £10 per head per year on cycling, to increase journeys by bike to 10% of all trips by 2025 and 25% by 2050, create consistently high design standards for cycle infrastructure and strengthen road traffic law and its enforcement  to protect cyclists, while offering cycle training for all ages.

Although it is not clear whether the £10 per head per year will be spent from the offset or a target for the five year term, the Lib Dem manifesto does indicate what the money, taken from existing budgets, will be spent on:

"This will allow investment in cycling including bike lanes, high-volume secure bike parking, and road safety measures to keep cyclists safe".

Cycling comes under the Lib Dems' proposed Green Transport Act, one of its Five Green Laws. For the Act the party would consult on low emission zones in the most polluted towns and cities, as well as on "new incentives for local schemes that cut transport-related pollution, and encourage walking and cycling."

The Lib Dems would also support an "intercity cycleway" alongside the HS2 route.

Cycling also appears under  "health". where, the Lib Dems say, it is better to prevent illness "rather than just waiting until people develop diseases".

"By tackling air pollution we can attack the root causes of many deaths; by opening up more sports facilities and building more cycle routes we can cut obesity and reduce heart problems."

Plaid Cymru

Cycling gets two mentions in Plaid Cymru's 64 page Westminster manifesto:

"We will ensure funding for urban cycle paths and between communities, particularly in travel to work areas."

"We will create more sustainable infrastructure with a particular focus on better housing, public transport, leisure and education facilities developing urban green areas and cycle routes"

Cycling as a sport also plays a role in Plaid Cymru's Inspire Wales programme, aimed at encouraging a variety of ages, abilities and ethnic backgrounds to participate in sports, as well as more women. Plaid Cymru will look to develop Irish-style Local Sports Partnerships to this end, linking Welsh governing bodies, sports authorities, schools and leisure facilities. The party's manifesto says: "We will look into attracting the Tour de France to Wales, for both men and women".

In 2013 Wales, which has devolved transport powers, passed the Active Travel Bill, which places obligation on councils to plan to improve its cycling and walking routes.
 

UKIP

While UKIP voiced its support for cycling in response to the CTC's Vote Bike campaign, contrary to anti-cycling comments from some of its candidates, this support hasn't translated to any commitment, or indeed a single mention of cycling, in its 76 page manifesto. Instead, the party's transport policy focuses on the car.

According to Jill Seymour, UKIP's transport spokesman: "Ours is a nation always on the move. Whether our daily journey takes us on the school run or on a long, cross-country haul, everyone needs a reliable, cost-efficient transport network. We do not need extortionate vanity projects or excessive regulations and motorists should not feel as if they are being used as cash cows to boost national or local government funds."

To this end UKIP wants to make motoring cheaper.

"UKIP will only allow installation of speed cameras when they can be used as a deterrent at accident black spots, near schools and in residential areas where there are specific potential dangers".

"We will remove road tolls where possible and let existing contracts on running road tolls expire. Motorists are already taxed highly enough through fuel and vehicle taxes."

"To help protect the enduring legacy of the motor industry and our classic and historic vehicles, UKIP will exempt vehicles over 25 years old from Vehicle Excise Duty."

UKIP's lack of interest in green transport is reflected in its stance on air quality and the environment, with promises to abolish the Department of Energy and Climate Change, repeal the Climate Change Act and scrap green subsidies.

"UKIP will abolish green taxes and levies and withdraw from the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme, reducing fuel bills and enhancing industrial competitiveness at a stroke. The Climate Change Act is doing untold damage. UKIP will repeal it."

Add new comment

46 comments

Avatar
arfa | 8 years ago
0 likes

As much as I would like to see cycling gather genuine commitment and funding from all parties, it isn't an election winner due to the long standing hegemony of the automobile. A degree of satisfaction can be taken from it even making manifestos but cycling will only ever get chucked a bone or two until there's real change in attitudes. That might follow if there is overwhelming uptake on new infrastructure (eg as in London's infrastructure) leading to irrefutable improvements. Until then I am afraid it will remain token and a fringe issue.

Avatar
SB76 | 8 years ago
0 likes

The Parties need to do more about the transport policies but frankly they all have a up hill struggle to convince the british public to drive less. It's a real pity, such a basic thing would make us all healthier, happier and save a considerable amount of money the NHS spends every year.

Avatar
Mungecrundle | 8 years ago
0 likes

I just want a government that doesn't screw up my plans for cycling:
- By taking too much of my disposable income.
- By destroying my employment prospects.
- By sitting idle while other buggers pillage all the money.

Avatar
SB76 | 8 years ago
0 likes

I'd be really interrested in a near miss rate year on year. It wont exist and no doubt the roads arent worse but as the roads are busier, it's the near misses that make people feel less safe.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to SB76 | 8 years ago
0 likes
SB76 wrote:

I'd be really interrested in a near miss rate year on year. It wont exist and no doubt the roads arent worse but as the roads are busier, it's the near misses that make people feel less safe.

Feeling less safe isn't the same as being less safe. Nowadays because people are more safe in general not just on the roads they have a heightened and often unrealistc view of risk. It's like the parents that think the world is suddenly full of child abductors when the evidence is that it's about the same as it ever was.

So yes if you want to add in the figures of people who had a bit of a scare riding their bike along and we count that the same as being actually hit and killed in a collision we can make it appear that cycling is now ever so more more dangerou. than when many times more cyclists were hit and killed by far fewer cars on much less crowded roads.

Cycling isn't dangerous. You can make it dangerous if you try hard enough or do it blindfold but really it isn't.

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to oozaveared | 8 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:

Feeling less safe isn't the same as being less safe. Nowadays because people are more safe in general not just on the roads they have a heightened and often unrealistc view of risk. It's like the parents that think the world is suddenly full of child abductors when the evidence is that it's about the same as it ever was.

Total agree with you however the point is that, rightly or wrongly, it is a person's perception of risk/danger that influences their decisions and not the objective reality. So when we are talking about what informs modal choice the perception is much more important than the reality.

Avatar
SB76 replied to oozaveared | 8 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:
SB76 wrote:

I'd be really interrested in a near miss rate year on year. It wont exist and no doubt the roads arent worse but as the roads are busier, it's the near misses that make people feel less safe.

Feeling less safe isn't the same as being less safe. Nowadays because people are more safe in general not just on the roads they have a heightened and often unrealistc view of risk. It's like the parents that think the world is suddenly full of child abductors when the evidence is that it's about the same as it ever was.

So yes if you want to add in the figures of people who had a bit of a scare riding their bike along and we count that the same as being actually hit and killed in a collision we can make it appear that cycling is now ever so more more dangerou. than when many times more cyclists were hit and killed by far fewer cars on much less crowded roads.

Cycling isn't dangerous. You can make it dangerous if you try hard enough or do it blindfold but really it isn't.

I know feeling less safe is not the same as being less safe BUT the reason people talk about it being less safe or are scared to even try is because they feel it regardless of the facts and that was my point.

The reality is 99% of the time whilst maybe drivers not behaving perfectly i know i'm really quite safe but it still doesnt stop people being surprised i road cycle as it is viewed as dangerous even thought it is less so than in the past.

Avatar
SB76 replied to oozaveared | 8 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:
SB76 wrote:

I'd be really interrested in a near miss rate year on year. It wont exist and no doubt the roads arent worse but as the roads are busier, it's the near misses that make people feel less safe.

Feeling less safe isn't the same as being less safe. Nowadays because people are more safe in general not just on the roads they have a heightened and often unrealistc view of risk. It's like the parents that think the world is suddenly full of child abductors when the evidence is that it's about the same as it ever was.

So yes if you want to add in the figures of people who had a bit of a scare riding their bike along and we count that the same as being actually hit and killed in a collision we can make it appear that cycling is now ever so more more dangerou. than when many times more cyclists were hit and killed by far fewer cars on much less crowded roads.

Cycling isn't dangerous. You can make it dangerous if you try hard enough or do it blindfold but really it isn't.

I know feeling less safe is not the same as being less safe BUT the reason people talk about it being less safe or are scared to even try is because they feel it regardless of the facts and that was my point.

The reality is 99% of the time whilst maybe drivers not behaving perfectly i know i'm really quite safe but it still doesnt stop people being surprised i road cycle as it is viewed as dangerous even thought it is less so than in the past.

Avatar
Manchestercyclist | 9 years ago
0 likes

My point is that only a few people in a relatively small number of constituencies really count. There are a large number of people disenfranchised because of the system, it renders the principle of one person one vote moot.

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to Manchestercyclist | 8 years ago
0 likes
GREGJONES wrote:

My point is that only a few people in a relatively small number of constituencies really count. There are a large number of people disenfranchised because of the system, it renders the principle of one person one vote moot.

Agree with this.

I live in a 'safe seat'. My vote really doesn't feature in the process of deciding who moves into no. 10.

At a local level my vote does count. Even in a 'safe seat' the size of the majority is relevant but at national level I do feel excluded. The fact that where you live impacts the value of your vote is really not right.

Avatar
farrell | 9 years ago
0 likes

Oozavered joined a cycling club in 1973....but he doesn't like to talk about it...

http://road.cc/search/node/1973

Avatar
oozaveared replied to farrell | 8 years ago
0 likes
farrell wrote:

Oozavered joined a cycling club in 1973....but he doesn't like to talk about it...

http://road.cc/search/node/1973

That's a cool feature. I didn't know you could do that. Thanks

Avatar
oozaveared | 9 years ago
0 likes

I am as keen on cycling as anyone I've been one since 1973. But personally folks I am not basing my vote on which of the political parties "promises" more for cyclists. It's nice that cycling is being recognised but since 1973 when I joined a club we have had 23 years of Conservative government and 18 years of Labour government. Neither one has stopped me riding my bike or made much of a difference to the way I pedal along. The roads are a bit safer than they were back in the day but that's been a long process that wasn't affected by the colour of the government.

I'm sure there's something more useful to base your vote on.

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to oozaveared | 9 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:

I am as keen on cycling as anyone I've been one since 1973. But personally folks I am not basing my vote on which of the political parties "promises" more for cyclists. It's nice that cycling is being recognised but since 1973 when I joined a club we have had 23 years of Conservative government and 18 years of Labour government. Neither one has stopped me riding my bike or made much of a difference to the way I pedal along. The roads are a bit safer than they were back in the day but that's been a long process that wasn't affected by the colour of the government.

I'm sure there's something more useful to base your vote on.

The roads are quite a bit safer as the fatality rate is about 20% of what it was in 1973.

Avatar
oldstrath replied to OldRidgeback | 8 years ago
0 likes
OldRidgeback wrote:
oozaveared wrote:

I am as keen on cycling as anyone I've been one since 1973. But personally folks I am not basing my vote on which of the political parties "promises" more for cyclists. It's nice that cycling is being recognised but since 1973 when I joined a club we have had 23 years of Conservative government and 18 years of Labour government. Neither one has stopped me riding my bike or made much of a difference to the way I pedal along. The roads are a bit safer than they were back in the day but that's been a long process that wasn't affected by the colour of the government.

I'm sure there's something more useful to base your vote on.

The roads are quite a bit safer as the fatality rate is about 20% of what it was in 1973.

Which certainly does not prove that the roads are safer. Protection for people inside vehicles has improved, as has trauma care. It may well also be the case that vulnerable users have been driven off the roads.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to oldstrath | 8 years ago
0 likes
oldstrath wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:
oozaveared wrote:

I am as keen on cycling as anyone I've been one since 1973. But personally folks I am not basing my vote on which of the political parties "promises" more for cyclists. It's nice that cycling is being recognised but since 1973 when I joined a club we have had 23 years of Conservative government and 18 years of Labour government. Neither one has stopped me riding my bike or made much of a difference to the way I pedal along. The roads are a bit safer than they were back in the day but that's been a long process that wasn't affected by the colour of the government.

I'm sure there's something more useful to base your vote on.

The roads are quite a bit safer as the fatality rate is about 20% of what it was in 1973.

Which certainly does not prove that the roads are safer. Protection for people inside vehicles has improved, as has trauma care. It may well also be the case that vulnerable users have been driven off the roads.

Just plain wrong. Here's the table https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

Here are the trends back from 1926 I've picked the starting point and then done a ten year update

Off we go then
1927
Pop of UK = 44m
Registered motor vehicles = 1.7m
Cyclists killed = 644

1937
Pop of UK = 46m
Registered motor vehicles = 2.7m
Cyclists killed = 1415

1947
Pop of UK = 48.2m
Registered motor vehicles = 3.5m
Cyclists killed = 812

1957
Pop of UK = 50m
Registered motor vehicles = 6.7m
Cyclists killed = 663

1967
Pop of UK = 53.5m
Registered motor vehicles = 12.8m
Cyclists killed = 463

1977
Pop of UK = 54.7
Registered motor vehicles = 17.3m
Cyclists killed = 301

1987
Pop of UK = 55.2
Registered motor vehicles = 22.2m
Cyclists killed = 280

1997
Pop of UK = 56.6m
Registered motor vehicles = 27m
Cyclists killed = 183

2007
Pop of UK = 59.6m
Registered motor vehicles = 33.7m
Cyclists killed = 136

2013
Pop of UK = 62.3m
Registered motor vehicles = 35m
Cyclists killed = 109

I know people on here want to make cycling out to be some hazardous activity undertaken by an elite group of extremely brave people and that the roads are getting worse and more dangerous. But seriously they aren't. In the words of Max Boyce "I know, because I was there." but the figures are irrefutable.

The good old days aren't all they were cracked up to be.

Avatar
HKCambridge replied to oozaveared | 8 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:

I know people on here want to make cycling out to be some hazardous activity undertaken by an elite group of extremely brave people and that the roads are getting worse and more dangerous. But seriously they aren't. In the words of Max Boyce "I know, because I was there." but the figures are irrefutable.

The good old days aren't all they were cracked up to be.

You need to relate it to cycling rates too.

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to oozaveared | 8 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:

Just plain wrong. Here's the table https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

Here are the trends back from 1926 I've picked the starting point and then done a ten year update

I think that you are misusing these statistics a bit. The data contains nothing about the level of cycle usage so it doesn't demonstrate that the roads are getting safer for cyclists.

You could equally use the stats to assert the opposite if you assumed that cycle use declined at the same rate that car registrations increased. In short there are fewer of us out there to get squashed. I'm not saying that this is the case, only that you can paint any picture you like with incomplete figures.

I agree with you to a point about the colour of government making little difference to cyclists. As you point out you've been a club cyclist for a long time and it's true that the Sunday club run or 10k TT is not going to be impacted (with the possible exception of UKIP). Central Government doesn't tend to have much to do with local facilities such as velodromes or speedway tracks either so for leisure/sporting riders I agree with you.

What is relevant, however, is cycling as part of the transport mix. Changing modal share away from the car and towards the bike would be hugely beneficial to everyone, cyclist or otherwise. We're really mislabelling these things as 'cycling' policy, what we are talking about is transport policy. The Greens are the only ones who really seem to have the principal right. The Greens want to *reduce* car usage. Other parties talk about *increasing* cycle usage. The difference seems semantic but it is significant.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to Matt eaton | 8 years ago
0 likes
Matt eaton wrote:
oozaveared wrote:

Just plain wrong. Here's the table https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

Here are the trends back from 1926 I've picked the starting point and then done a ten year update

I think that you are misusing these statistics a bit. The data contains nothing about the level of cycle usage so it doesn't demonstrate that the roads are getting safer for cyclists.

You could equally use the stats to assert the opposite if you assumed that cycle use declined at the same rate that car registrations increased. In short there are fewer of us out there to get squashed. I'm not saying that this is the case, only that you can paint any picture you like with incomplete figures.

I agree with you to a point about the colour of government making little difference to cyclists. As you point out you've been a club cyclist for a long time and it's true that the Sunday club run or 10k TT is not going to be impacted (with the possible exception of UKIP). Central Government doesn't tend to have much to do with local facilities such as velodromes or speedway tracks either so for leisure/sporting riders I agree with you.

What is relevant, however, is cycling as part of the transport mix. Changing modal share away from the car and towards the bike would be hugely beneficial to everyone, cyclist or otherwise. We're really mislabelling these things as 'cycling' policy, what we are talking about is transport policy. The Greens are the only ones who really seem to have the principal right. The Greens want to *reduce* car usage. Other parties talk about *increasing* cycle usage. The difference seems semantic but it is significant.

The greens will definitely reduce car and vehicle usage but that will be an unfortunate outcome of their voodoo economics. Luckily though ...

Avatar
Matt eaton replied to oozaveared | 8 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:

The greens will definitely reduce car and vehicle usage but that will be an unfortunate outcome of their voodoo economics. Luckily though ...

Yes, well that's a different matter. Just to be clear, I'm not a Greenie but they do win a point on the subject in question.

Avatar
HKCambridge replied to oozaveared | 9 years ago
0 likes
oozaveared wrote:

I am as keen on cycling as anyone I've been one since 1973. But personally folks I am not basing my vote on which of the political parties "promises" more for cyclists. It's nice that cycling is being recognised but since 1973 when I joined a club we have had 23 years of Conservative government and 18 years of Labour government. Neither one has stopped me riding my bike or made much of a difference to the way I pedal along. The roads are a bit safer than they were back in the day but that's been a long process that wasn't affected by the colour of the government.

I'm sure there's something more useful to base your vote on.

Why shouldn't I, at least in part, base my vote on whether the parties are going to tackle inactivity and spiralling NHS costs? On air and noise pollution and their impact on health? On congestion? On the ability of people who don't or can't own a car to access education, jobs and services? On high return on investment transport spend? On climate change?

Framing it as an issue for cyclists is why we're in this mess.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to HKCambridge | 8 years ago
0 likes
HKCambridge wrote:
oozaveared wrote:

I am as keen on cycling as anyone I've been one since 1973. But personally folks I am not basing my vote on which of the political parties "promises" more for cyclists. It's nice that cycling is being recognised but since 1973 when I joined a club we have had 23 years of Conservative government and 18 years of Labour government. Neither one has stopped me riding my bike or made much of a difference to the way I pedal along. The roads are a bit safer than they were back in the day but that's been a long process that wasn't affected by the colour of the government.

I'm sure there's something more useful to base your vote on.

Why shouldn't I, at least in part, base my vote on whether the parties are going to tackle inactivity and spiralling NHS costs? On air and noise pollution and their impact on health? On congestion? On the ability of people who don't or can't own a car to access education, jobs and services? On high return on investment transport spend? On climate change?

Framing it as an issue for cyclists is why we're in this mess.

Well you can if you want. No doubt many people will base their vote on a lot less than that. Just saying that promises about a cycling strategy funded, unfunded or whatever is a bit of a narrow view. There's narrower ones for sure.

But fill your boots.

Avatar
Airzound | 9 years ago
0 likes

What ever flavour of politicians are in power the UK is still a cycle hating land. It is a shit country to ride in, crap cycling infrastructure, so much hatred and aggression directed at cyclists. It will never change.

Avatar
Manchestercyclist | 9 years ago
0 likes

I live in a safe seat, so it makes no difference what so ever how I vote

Avatar
Wookie replied to Manchestercyclist | 9 years ago
0 likes
GREGJONES wrote:

I live in a safe seat, so it makes no difference what so ever how I vote

Voting always counts whether in a safe seat or not. One thing this first past the post system can do is allow tactical voting. So if you aren’t happy with you candidate you could still get a safe seat candidate removed if you can persuade your local voters to vote for the second choice candidate even if that candidate is one you wouldn’t necessarily support (As long as it isn’t those UKIP twats)

Avatar
farrell replied to Wookie | 9 years ago
0 likes
Wesselwookie wrote:
GREGJONES wrote:

I live in a safe seat, so it makes no difference what so ever how I vote

Voting always counts whether in a safe seat or not. One thing this first past the post system can do is allow tactical voting. So if you aren’t happy with you candidate you could still get a safe seat candidate removed if you can persuade your local voters to vote for the second choice candidate even if that candidate is one you wouldn’t necessarily support (As long as it isn’t those UKIP twats)

Whut?

If you could easily convince people to vote for another candidate and get them to win then it's hardly a safe seat is it?

Avatar
Wookie replied to farrell | 9 years ago
0 likes
farrell wrote:
Wesselwookie wrote:
GREGJONES wrote:

I live in a safe seat, so it makes no difference what so ever how I vote

Voting always counts whether in a safe seat or not. One thing this first past the post system can do is allow tactical voting. So if you aren’t happy with you candidate you could still get a safe seat candidate removed if you can persuade your local voters to vote for the second choice candidate even if that candidate is one you wouldn’t necessarily support (As long as it isn’t those UKIP twats)

Whut?

If you could easily convince people to vote for another candidate and get them to win then it's hardly a safe seat is it?

Where did I say it would be easy?

Avatar
farrell replied to Wookie | 9 years ago
0 likes
Wesselwookie wrote:
farrell wrote:
Wesselwookie wrote:
GREGJONES wrote:

I live in a safe seat, so it makes no difference what so ever how I vote

Voting always counts whether in a safe seat or not. One thing this first past the post system can do is allow tactical voting. So if you aren’t happy with you candidate you could still get a safe seat candidate removed if you can persuade your local voters to vote for the second choice candidate even if that candidate is one you wouldn’t necessarily support (As long as it isn’t those UKIP twats)

Whut?

If you could easily convince people to vote for another candidate and get them to win then it's hardly a safe seat is it?

Where did I say it would be easy?

You're correct, you didn't say it was or would be easy, so I'll rephrase:

Whut?

If you can convince people to vote for another candidate and get them to win then it's hardly a safe seat is it?

Avatar
Wookie replied to farrell | 9 years ago
0 likes
farrell wrote:
Wesselwookie wrote:
farrell wrote:
Wesselwookie wrote:
GREGJONES wrote:

I live in a safe seat, so it makes no difference what so ever how I vote

Voting always counts whether in a safe seat or not. One thing this first past the post system can do is allow tactical voting. So if you aren’t happy with you candidate you could still get a safe seat candidate removed if you can persuade your local voters to vote for the second choice candidate even if that candidate is one you wouldn’t necessarily support (As long as it isn’t those UKIP twats)

Whut?

If you could easily convince people to vote for another candidate and get them to win then it's hardly a safe seat is it?

Where did I say it would be easy?

You're correct, you didn't say it was or would be easy, so I'll rephrase:

Whut?

If you can convince people to vote for another candidate and get them to win then it's hardly a safe seat is it?

There was one successful attempt and one unsuccessful attempt at the last election on the south coast somewhere to remove the incumbent so it can and has been done before. And with social media anything is posible.

Avatar
oozaveared replied to Manchestercyclist | 9 years ago
0 likes

I live in a safe seat, so it makes no difference what so ever how I vote

don't bother then. It seems like the people in your area have a pretty clear preference as to which party they want to represent them and the electoral system delivers to them that representation. So democracy seems to be working pretty well.

Pages

Latest Comments