If you were old enough or keen enough (I was the latter) to stay up through the night to watch the last election in 2010, then Vernon Bogdanor should be a familiar face, if not a familiar name. In his role as one of Britain’s foremost constitutional experts, he appeared throughout the night as one of the BBC’s academic pundits. His suitability for this prominent role was certainly not hindered by the fact he was David Cameron’s former tutor.

Whilst the result of yesterday’s election is now known, it wasn’t at the time of print, and when I ask Bogdanor who he thought would win, he keeps mum, telling me, “Anyone who says they know the answer is either a fool or a social scientist.” Well, I suppose we now know whether any of the fools or social scientists were right.

Moving onto less speculative matters, I ask Bogdanor how he thinks 2010 impacted the political system. For Bogdanor, the key thing is “the growth of the multi-party system”. He also points out the growing geographical fragmentation of politics, “We have got different party battles in different parts of the country. In Scotland, it is obviously a battle between Labour and the SNP, in the West Country of England between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, in London much more between Labour and the Conservatives, in some of these East Coast towns, between Conservatives and UKIP. It is a question of whether it is a general election or a regional election or even a series of local by-elections. Even the idea of a national swing has gone.”

On whether the multi-party system is here to last, Bogdanor is clear, “I think the rise of a multi-party system is permanent and it fits in with trends in society because we no longer have a tribal system based on social classes. In the 1950s, people used to say, ‘We’ve always voted Labour,’ or, ‘My family has always been Conservative.’ We now live in a more consumerist society where people shop around. A third reason is that we have got PR for a lot of elections: for the Scottish Parliament, for the London Assembly, for the European Parliament and I think that might have accustomed people to vote for the smaller parties.“Ideally, I would like to see a single party majority government if more than 50 per cent of the people vote for it. I don’t want the kind of majority government like we had in 2005, when two-thirds of the country were against it. It is not in accordance with democracy.”

One of the key themes of this election has been the rise of the SNP, despite their defeat in last year’s referendum. Bodganor is optimistic about any role the SNP might play in the upcoming parliament, telling me, “SNP MPs are members of parliament on the same basis as any others. They have said they are going to play a constructive role and not just fight for independence. In my opinion, they should be taken at their word.

“The problem for Ed Miliband is that they will form an anti-austerity bloc including the Greens and some members of his own party. But he is committed to balancing the current budget by 2018 which mean cuts in public spending. There will be an anti-austerity bloc that will make it difficult for Miliband to govern.”

The Conservatives have often argued that a corollary of further devolution to Scotland is English votes for English laws, an argument with which Bogdanor disagrees adamantly. “I am against English votes for English laws. I think it is not right because England is by far the dominant partner of the Union with 85 per cent of the population, and we cannot have a symmetrical system. With such an unbalanced system, it is not possible. You cannot have two different governments, one for foreign policy and defence, one for health and housing. Anyway, what is an English issue? Anything which involves public expenditure is not strictly an English issue because it has a knock-on effect on Scotland through the Barnett formula. England has to accept a system of asymmetrical devolution and practice self-restraint to keep the union. We were not willing to pay that price for Ireland and we lost Ireland, and I don’t want the same to happen to Scotland; I am a unionist.”

The Scottish issue brings up the whole question of whether referenda are a good thing generally. Bogdanor’s response, “Yes, I think that in a democracy, people are entitled to have a say on issues. You can’t tell from the fact that somebody votes Conservative whether they favour staying in the EU or not. On the large issues, I think you can only get legitimacy through a referendum.”

Of course, there are many issues on which the opinions of the liberal elite and the population as a whole diverge, such as the death penalty. I ask Bogdanor whether the death penalty was an appropriate topic for a referendum, “If the demand were strong enough and a party favoured that, yes. I am against the death penalty and I take a perhaps old-fashioned, rationalist view that if the arguments against the death penalty are strong enough, they will win the day. I wouldn’t have a referendum on something that affects individual rights, like gay rights or things of that sort. I think they should be protected by the courts and shouldn’t be subjected to a majority democratic decision, but I am in favour of the wider use of referenda.”

As the conversation ended, I was left with an impression of a man full of optimism in Britain’s political system. Whilst the extent of his enthusiasm might be unwarranted, it is reassuring in light of the uncertainty around this election that Bogdanor sees the British system as fundamentally stable.

As Bogdanor says, “We are a highly stable country, much more so than most countries on the continent except for the Scandinavian countries. We have no really nasty right wing party like the Front National, no left wing nationalist party like Syriza. All our parties are moderate and committed to the constitutional system. There will be a way to make things work.”

There is much to say of the General Election just passed. In some senses, the British public are probably somewhat relieved that it is all over: media coverage of the election campaign has been relentless over the past five weeks. Perhaps now we can return to normality. The reality is, however, that British politics will never return to its run-of-the-mill form. The political landscape has been fundamentally altered and this General Election has ushered in a new type of politics.

Gone is the traditional left-right dichotomy. Voters, increasingly divorced from clearly defined partisan links, are no longer voting according to the issue dimensions that run parallel to the Left-Right divide. Half a century ago, one in four voters said they identified very strongly with one of the main parties; now that statistic is just one in ten. Equality versus freedom, public versus private ownership, the working classes versus the economic elite: these divisions retain some relevance but their impact has been significantly diminished by the appearance of new, cross-cutting dimensions. Polarised views on immigration, the environment and Britain’s membership of the European Union are just some examples of the new dimensions that have emerged.

Replacing the traditional Left-Right political jargon is the notion of an ‘insider-outsider’ distinction. Capitalising on voters who feel alienated by the policies of Britain’s ‘insider’ parties, the more populist ‘outsider’ parties – the SNP, the Greens and UKIP in particular – are gaining traction. The increase in support for parties other than Labour and the Conservatives is not necessarily a new phenomenon, but it does reflect the fact that the political landscape is changing in a more permanent way than ever before.

Coalitions and minority government are likely to continue to be a regular feature in the future. And this is despite a first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system that provides a significant advantage to the UK’s two largest parties. Fortunately, however, there does at last appear to be some recognition that more consensual, more pluralistic government may be the way forward. The old adage that majority governments generate strong and decisive policy-making continues to retain currency but there is a trade-off in terms of the extent to which the government represents the interests of the people as a whole. Conciliation and compromise are increasingly required to ensure that the interests of a large minority are not neglected.

What then of the future of British politics? This election has paid witness to a very considerable change in the shape of the political landscape but this change is more permanent than many commentators suggest. The elephant in the room is electoral system change. Given that the FPTP system benefits the two largest parties, neither Labour nor the Conservatives appear to have an incentive to support change and the comprehensive rejection of the Alternative Vote (AV) system in 2011 lends weight to the conclusion that electoral reform would simply not be possible.

UKIP are splitting the Conservative vote yet not translating their vote into a largely supportive bloc of right-wing legislative seats. Electoral reform in the shape of Proportional Representation (PR) may not be as far away as some think. Even if the Conservatives do not change their stance, an increasingly disproportionate electoral system is likely to force the issue.

Aside from electoral reform, there is likely to be one additional significant political change within the next generation. Scotland, in despite of last year’s referendum, appears to be moving inexorably towards the exit door. When historians reflect on the 2015 General Election, their focus is likely to be on the extraordinary rise of the Scottish National Party, a rise that does not appear to be on the wane any time soon.

The hegemony of Labour and the Conservatives is not necessarily over but it will certainly be difficult to recover. Voter concerns can no longer be grouped along a simple left-right continuum and the weakening of partisan ties has meant that the outsider parties are coming to the fore. Scottish and English nationalism are both serious concerns but there is some hope that this election will mark the beginning of the process towards electoral reform. A new politics has emerged from this election and it is one that requires conciliation and compromise rather than the conflicted politics of old.

C + Investigations undertook a poll of 1071 students from across the University to find out students’ voting intentions in next week’s General Election. Of those, 1017 told C+ both their college and expressed a voting preference. 725 expressed an intention to vote in either the Oxford East or Oxford West & Abingdon constituency, whilst 237 respondents said that they were going to vote in their home constituency. Some results may be skewed due to an unequal distribution of respondents over colleges. For rankings between colleges, those with low response rates were excluded.

Who are you planning to vote for?

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11671%%[/mm-hide-text] 

What are the top priorities for Oxford students voting for the Conservatives or Labour?

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11672%%[/mm-hide-text] 

What is the most important issue for you in the General Election?

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11673%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Tom Robinson provides a breakdown of Cherwell’s survey on voter intentions

Labour has come out top in a University-wide poll of students’ voting intentions. 31.6 per cent of students intend to vote for the party, while support for David Cameron and the Conservatives came in at only 24.2 per cent. The poll suggests that the voting intentions of Oxford students are at odds with those of the general public, with the BBC’s poll of polls (as of Monday of First Week) putting the Conservatives one point ahead of Labour on 34 per cent. Oxford students in contrast appear to favour Labour considerably.

However, of those respondents intending to vote in Oxford West and Abingdon, support for the Labour Party was only 25 per cent (versus 31.4 per cent in Oxford East), whereas the Conservative Party came out on top at 29 per cent (versus 20.3 per cent in Oxford East). Liberal Democrat support was also more pronounced in Oxford West and Abingdon than in Oxford East, at 19 per cent versus 11 per cent.

Variation across the two constituencies may be explained by the fact that both Oxford seats are considered fairly safe for the Conservative and Labour parties respectively. Students may therefore be engaging in tactical voting, choosing to vote in more marginal seats back in their home constituencies. Oxford West and Abingdon is considered a relatively safe bet for the Conservative Party’s Nicola Blackwood and Oxford East has returned the Labour Party’s Andrew Smith since 1987. It is likely that many Labour-supporting students residing in Oxford West and Abingdon intend to vote elsewhere. 

Unsurprisingly, support for the Green Party was strong amongst the student population, with 15 per cent of responses indicating an intention to vote for Natalie Bennett’s party next Thursday. After excluding colleges with low response rates, Wadham College expressed the highest proportion of support for the Greens, with 28% of students there intending to vote for the party.

UKIP underperformed national polling, with the party only receiving 4.1 per cent of student support. On the other hand the Liberal Democrats, some of whose MPs voted for tuition fee rises despite pledging not to, outperformed national polls by two per cent. A further 8.7 per cent of students remained undecided at the time of the survey but only 0.5 per cent said they did not intend to cast a vote. The most undecided colleges were Mansfield, Oriel and Regent’s Park, though low response numbers across some colleges may skew these results.

Social issues dominated the most important policy areas for students in the run up to the election. Welfare policy came out as the most important issue with 23.8 per cent of respondents deeming it the most important issue. The NHS came in second place with 16.6 per cent. Government borrowing was the third most highlighted policy at 11.4 per cent.Within support for the two
main parties, those expressing a preference for the Conservative Party were much more likely to highlight government borrowing or jobs as their most important issue whereas Labour voters favoured social welfare and the NHS. Undermining fears that new electoral registration laws may deter students from voting, only 2 per cent of respondents had not registered to
vote.

Have colleges earned their stereotypes? C+ looks at some of the more light-hearted findings of the General Election survey

Even less surprising than the level of support for the Greens in a student survey was the responses of a few students who wished to express their rather ‘unique’ voting intentions. For one survey respondent, the answer is
clear: vote for the First Galactic Empire to secure a brighter future for all by tackling the most important issue of all, “Jedi scum”.Another particularly inspired student suggests we eschew the norm of voting for humans and instead choose Princess Celestia, an Alicorn pony and co-ruler of Equestria.

More seriously, Wadham can breathe easy knowing that over 63 per cent of the college voted for either the Greens or Labour, and had the joint-lowest proportion of Conservative voters of all Oxford colleges at 8 per cent, alongside Mansfield. With only 40 per cent of Balliol respondents choosing Ed Miliband’s party, the College may need to worry that their reputation as the heartland of Labour support has come under fire.

St Hilda’s, Pembroke, Mansfield, and Hertford each had a higher proportion of Labour voters than the supposed bastion of The Red Flag (49, 44, 62, and 58 per cent respectively).

The Conservative Party was the most favoured party of 14 colleges, with a particularly high proportion of student support at St John’s, Christ Church, Somerville and the alma mater of leader David Cameron, Brasenose.

Labour – Madalena Leao

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11670%%[/mm-hide-text] 

The Labour party is promising to double the rate of house building by 2020. However, fewer council homes were built under New Labour than under Thatcher. How can students trust your party?

Between 1997 and 2010, the Labour party didn’t build enough houses, social or private. It built 2.61 million new homes (compared to Thatcher’s 2.63 million). It prioritised private housing over social, a trend that was started by John Major, who presided over a flatlining in the number of council houses built.

This can be partly explained by the fact that Labour faced a huge number of challenges when it came to power in 1997. In the 13 years it had in charge, the party improved the lives of workers by introducing a national minimum wage. It transformed state schools by hiring over 42,000 new teachers and over 210,000 teaching assistants and special educational needs assistants. This led to the proportion of schools who had less than 30 per cent of their students receiving five good GCSEs falling from 50 per cent to under one per cent. It brought in laws that put Britain on its way to stamping out discrimination, and took the steps that made the legalisation of gay marriage possible and more.

And although the Decent Homes Programme was set up to put £20bn towards making sure British homes were safe, warm, modern, and watertight, it’s clear that part of the reason why house building wasn’t up to scratch is because (rightly or wrongly) it fell down the list of priorities of a party facing a mountainous number of tasks. 

But when the coalition got into government in 2010, they had the perfect opportunity to find a solution to the housing crisis. Not only had the lack (social and private) of housing become a recognised problem by then, but building projects could have provided a path to higher rates of employment and the backbone to economic recovery following the global financial crisis. 
Instead, they punished the disabled through the bedroom tax, increased non-progressive taxes like VAT, and reorganised the NHS from the top-down; building only 137,000 houses a year (the lowest levels of house building since the 1920s), when 300,000 were needed.

We can trust a Labour government to deliver where the Tories refused for two simple reasons. Firstly, it is top of Miliband’s agenda. In his conference speech last year, he made it his “top priority” and the policy of doubling house building has been widely publicised.

Secondly, Miliband is not Blair or Brown. He’s proven (by standing up to Murdoch, the government, the city of London, and recently even Jeremy Paxman) that he’s not afraid to shake things up. He’ll force banks to invest in housing and push his government to put great effort into doubling the number of homes Britain builds.

Liberal Democrats – Syed Imam

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11662%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Before the last election the Liberal Democrats promised not to raise tuition fees; they were then raised, while education expenditure has seen serious cuts. Why should students trust you?

The Liberal Democrats messed up on tuition fees, and they messed up big. As a result, students are rightfully questioning whether they should consider voting Lib Dem this time round, but here’s why they still definitely should.
Allow me to explain what we did deliver on tuition fees. We created what is essentially a graduate tax; if people with a university education are more likely to get a job and command a far higher salary than those without a degree, it makes sense that they pay back a larger share than those who don’t.

Getting a degree is still completely free at the point of use and it is only fair that some of the cost is paid back by those who are now better off as a result so as to allow the next generation to prosper equally. It is a ridiculous concept to make people without degrees pay for those who are wealthier and do have them. The dustman shouldn’t be paying for the doctor. Fairer still is the system of repayment; you only start paying this ‘graduate tax’ once you are earning more than £21,000 a year (someone without a degree on average earns only £17,800) and if you lose your job or earn less than £21,000, you pay nothing at all. As a result of all this, more students are applying than ever before, and there are more applications by disadvantaged and BAME students.

If you are angry that higher education fees are even on the table of budgeting discussion, please, be angry at the Labour Party who introduced, then trebled, fees while each time promising not to, despite having total control in a majority government and a booming economy.

So why should students trust us?

The past five years have not been easy. There has been a democratic compromise where we have worked with a party with values very different to ours. Yet we have successfully implemented 75 per cent of our manifesto, in the face of Tory pressure and with only 8 per cent of MPs in parliament. You can trust us when we say we will cut taxes for millions of working people because that is what we have done every year for the past five years. You can trust us when we say we will fight for LGBTQ+ rights because that is what we have done, making same-sex marriage legal in 2013.

You can trust us when we say we will invest in education because we have protected schools’ funding and created the Pupil Premium, benefiting the poorest schoolchildren. You can trust us when we say we will greatly increase funding for mental health issues, because that is what we have done, and we have pledged £3.5 billion more. This is a strong record, with a promise of more, to create a fairer, more prosperous society.

Conservatives – Jan Nedvidek

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11661%%[/mm-hide-text] 

In power, the Conservative-led government has overseen tuition fee rises and cuts to the education budget. If your party were to be elected, your leader has stated that education spending will not rise with inflation. Why should students trust you?

So many people support ‘free education’, and it is just so easy to fall in for that phrase. Of course we all want education to be free. However, we live in a world where things are not free, and like healthcare or housing, education costs money. Someone has got to pay for it.

I think it is only fair that those who benefit from tertiary education the most – us, university students – should be asked to contribute towards the cost of our education. If I don’t pay, someone else will have to: what’s ‘fairer’ about a worker in the opposite corner of the country paying for my degree through his or her taxes? What’s ‘fairer’ about borrowing more money so that my grandchildren pay for my degree?

And let us please stop this narrative of how the fees are putting people off applying. The number of people applying to universities keeps growing. 
The extra money in the system has enabled universities to create new bursaries and scholarships, meaning that more money that ever before is being spent of helping students from poorer backgrounds.

I don’t think I need to convince people to trust us: as the governing party; we have a record to defend, so let people judge the Tories by the government’s results, not by my articles.

I am fundamentally convinced it is a good record: according to polls, support for the Conservative Party has doubled (!) among 18-24 year olds since the last election, and there is probably a reason for that.

After we graduate, we will all need a job. And guess what: we will be fine with our shiny Oxford degrees (or a very average 2.1 in my case), but not everyone in this country will. Unemployment statistics are not empty numbers. They tell you that five years ago, there were 2.5m individuals who could not work, despite the fact they wanted to and had the right skills. The UK has created more jobs since 2010 then the rest of the EU put together ; Yorkshire has created more jobs than the whole of France. This is a record I’m happy and proud to defend.

I understand that voting Tory isn’t very sexy. I’m convinced, though, that the Tories offer the most competence on the economy and the strongest leadership . On a personal note: I’m glad Cameron was the first PM ever to push through legislation which now allows me to get married. 
I want to live in a country which works and lives within its means, and I think I have the best shot by voting Conservative.

Green Party – David Thomas, Green councillor

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11663%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Support for the Green Party is disproportionately high among students. Yet, many find your party’s nuclear stance irrational, while some see your promises as unrealistic. Why should students trust you?

Can the Greens be trusted with your vote at this year’s General Election? Voting – I expect for most of you it will be your first time – is a big decision and nobody wants to throw it away on a party that can’t be trusted to think straight or act responsibly.

Take nuclear power as an example. At first glance, nuclear power appears to be a no-brainer – energy with no carbon emissions! What on earth then are the Greens up to when we say “no to nuclear”? Aren’t we being a little self-indulgent? Trying to have our cake and eat it? The answer is really very simple – we just don’t think you need nuclear energy. Instead, we believe the answer lies in a massive frontal attack on energy efficiency – such as insulating our homes – and getting proven renewable technologies such as solar and wind to generate the lion’s share of the remaining demand.

But why try to avoid nuclear in the first place? Firstly, managing the waste products of nuclear fission passes an unacceptable burden and risk onto future generations. Secondly, it’s not at all clear that nuclear power is all that low in terms of carbon emissions once one takes into account plant construction, ore extraction and transportation: it’s obviously streets head of burning coal, but is probably no better than solar and wind. I realise that, for some, neither of these concerns may seem like show-stoppers. However, the wheels really start to come off when you look at the finances. Constructing nuclear power plants requires vast sums of taxpayer subsidy, and the eventual cost of the power they produce is extremely high. Nuclear is simply not good value for money. In a sense, nuclear power is a distraction from the main practical challenges ahead of us – reducing energy demand and de-carbonising energy generation. In our manifesto we have pledged to insulate nine million homes (in the process creating 100,000 jobs and lifting millions out of fuel poverty), decommission all UK coal fired power stations by 2023, and invest £35bn to bring on-line the renewables we need to stop catastrophic climate change.

Nuclear power is just one example from many where the Greens can be trusted to deliver a common good, not just benefits for the few. Others include a £10/hr living wage, an end to right-to buy, an end of austerity, and an end of NHS privatisation. And of course, when we say we won’t ever do a deal with the Conservatives, you can bank on it.
If you believe in what the Greens represent and stand for, I urge you to vote Green­. You won’t let in the Tories and you’ll be showing Labour their brand of Tory Lite is not enough.

UKIP – Max Jewell

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11664%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Lots of people find your strong anti-immigration rhetoric worrying. Many also worry about potential job losses if the country were to leave the EU. Why should students trust you?

UKIP are not anti-immigration. There has been an unhelpful, and possibly deliberate, conflation of opposition to immigration and opposition to mass immigration. That modern economies benefit from some immigration is almost beyond doubt. Indeed, I know of nobody in UKIP who is arguing for zero migration. Moreover, there is a widespread perception that UKIP’s opposition to mass immigration is based on little more than reactionary racism, a kind of saloon bar bigotry. Former OUSU President Tom Rutland, for instance, has claimed that there is a vein of racism that “runs through the party”. International students may quite legitimately fear such a party. Yet this isn’t UKIP.

We are chiefly concerned about the sheer scale of immigration in recent years. We are concerned that recent migratory trends have compressed wages, a view supported by a number of economists in the House of Commons Treasury Committee report on the Autumn Statement. We note that immigration has greatly increased housing demands.

We argue, as the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee has done, that there is “no systematic empirical evidence to suggest that net immigration creates significant dynamic benefits for the resident population in the UK”. Such concerns are legitimate, and shared by 74 per cent of the population who want to see immigration reduced, and ought not to cause distress to international students, nor should they be dismissed by an out of touch elite drunk on a sense of superiority.

UKIP hasn’t attempted to hide its desire to leave the European Union. It has been argued that secession from the European Union will cost Britain, including its young citizens, jobs. Three million, if the Liberal Democrats are to be believed. Yet the danger has likely been overstated. The NIESR, who authored the claim, also wrote, “There is no a priori reason to suppose that many of these [jobs], if any, would be lost permanently if Britain were to leave the EU.”
Moreover, an Ernst and Young ‘UK Attractiveness Survey’ found that although “56 per cent of investors in Western Europe feel that if the UK were less integrated into the EU, it would become less attractive for FDI, […] 72 per cent of US and two-thirds of Asian investors believe that a looser relationship with the EU would actually make the UK more attractive.” The two year period between the declaration that Britain intends to leave the EU and the event would doubtless be more than enough time for business to adjust.
We want an amicable divorce from political union. There is nothing wrong with that.

Disgruntled voters – Luke Barratt

I still don’t know if I’ll vote or not. I’m uninspired by the choices available, repulsed by the governmental system as a whole, and disgusted by the meaningless nature of my vote in a first past the post system and the undermining of democracy that it represents.

I could vote tactically, for Layla Moran, to get the Conservatives out, recognising the value in real terms of the hair whose breadth splits the two main parties. Many people in the UK – disabled people for example – will suffer slightly less under a coalition government than they would under a Tory government. But can I really sacrifice my beliefs, voting to enable the accession of one group of out-of-touch public schoolboys who care more about their second homes – let alone their second kitchens – than the welfare of the electorate?

Besides, who knows what it would accomplish? The endless coalition permutations of a hung parliament mean that I could never be sure who I was voting into Westminster. My vote would be a disingenuous shout of support to much that I despise, arguing in a room I don’t think should even exist.
I could just vote for the party I hate the least. In my case, this would be the Greens. They have some great policies, and represent the only voice crying anti-austerity in a cacophony of fiscal conservatism. But at the same time, their lack of diversity is disconcerting, and from brain fades to bin collections, they haven’t exactly shown much competence in the last few years. What’s more, a vote for the Greens is essentially a vote wasted, unless you live in Brighton.

If the reward for my complicity in an election rigged in favour of the status quo is nothing more than the unquantified and uncertain promise of a slight shift to the left from those eternal non-performers, Labour, how have I done justice to the disenfranchised? My vote would be a single voice – shut out of the house – screaming into the darkness, unheard.

Or, I could not vote. As soon as I contemplate refusing to take part in our broken electoral system, I feel as if a great weight has been lifted. Yes, I won’t have any say in who wins my seat, and therefore the General Election, but that would be the case for option two, anyway.

Perhaps, I think, in the tiny optimistic core of my mind, not voting is the most powerful demand for electoral reform I can make. Perhaps I’m voting for proportional representation. There are those who would argue that I should spoil my ballot, that my opinion is provided for in the current system, but I disagree.

As soon as I’ve put pen to paper in the polling station, I’ve consented to participation in this election. And I do not consent. I don’t agree with the rules that are forced upon us, and I don’t want to pretend that I do. My voice will join all the other angry dissenters. We stand in a huge crowd, murmuring discontentedly, larger than any party’s voter base, and far from silent.