Today the British Election Study published its face-to-face data for the 2017 election. The BES has two main elements: one is a large online panel element, using the same respondents in multiple waves so that they can track change at an individual level. The other part is a smaller face-to-face element, using a genuine random sample to try and get the best sample possible. The face-to-face element is also cross-referenced with the marked electoral register (that is, the copy of the register in polling stations where people’s names are crossed off as they vote) so that they can verify after the election whether people genuinely did or did not vote.

This means the face-to-face data is by far the best data we have on actual turnout levels and on turnout levels among different demographic groups. When discussing turnout I’m often asked about the official figures for turnout among men and women, young and old, and have to explain that these figures do not exist. While there are official figures of the numbers of votes cast in each constituency and the number of people on the electoral register (a different figure, note, to the number of people who are actually eligible to vote, where there is an absence of official data), there are no actual figures for turnout among demographic sub-groups of the population. We know how many people voted, but not details of their age, gender, class or other demographics.

Up until now there has been a widespread narrative that in 2018 Labour managed to engage young people who do not normally vote and substantially increase youth turnout at the general election (referred to by the rather irriating neologism “youthquake”). This was never based on particularly strong evidence. The narrative had begun to take hold during the campaign itself because of the difference between polls (a simple explanation of the polls during the 2017 campaign was that companies showing a large Tory lead were doing so because they weighting down younger respondents based on their past unlikelihood to vote and companies showing smaller Tory leads were basing turnout more on self-reporting and, therefore, often showing higher youth turnout). A common and not unreasonable assumption before the general election was, therefore, that if youth turnout did increase those polls showing a smaller Tory lead would be right, if youth turnout stayed low the Tories would win comfortably. Another common discussion during the campaign were the enthusiastic crowds of young people that were attracted to Jeremy Corbyn’s events. People sensibly cautioned that what mattered was whether those crowds actually suggested normally uninterested young people would vote, or just represented the more politically engaged young people.

By election day, there was a narrative that if all those enthusiastic young people actually came out to vote Labour would do well, and if it was just a mirage the Tories would win. Therefore when the Conservatives did do less well than most people expected the most easily available explanation to reach for was that young people had indeed been enthused to go out and vote Labour. In the immediate aftermath of the election an implausible claim that youth turnout was 72% was widely reported, without any apparent source. Shortly after that polling evidence from various companies emerged that did support a higher level of youth turnout. Given that the problem with polling accuracy in 2015 was that poll samples had too many of the sort of people who vote, particularly among young people, this evidence was rather dicey. It could have been that youth turnout had risen… or it could have been that polls still contained too many of the sort of young people who vote. The final bit of evidence was that seats that contained a larger proportion of young people did see their turnout rise more at the election… though as Chris Prosser and the rest of the BES team ably explain in their paper, this is not necessarily the strong evidence you might think: seats with more young people tend to be urban and more diverse, so it’s equally possible that urban areas in general saw a larger increase in turnout.

In fact the BES data released today – using a random sample and checked against the electoral register – does not find evidence of any increase in turnout among under 25s, thought does find some evidence of an increase in turnout among those between 25 and 44. The boost in youth turnout that people have been using to explain the 2017 election may not actually exist at all (or if it does, it was among relatively young voters, rather than the youngest voters). That’s not to say that young voters were not still important in explaining the election result – age was still an important divide on how people voted, young people did still heavily vote for Labour so it is still fair to say Labour managed to enthuse young people more, it’s just that the level of turnout among under 25s does not appear to have risen; Labour just took a greater share of support among younger voters.

This does raise some other questions about the polls at the 2017 election. Until now the most obvious explanation for why some polls got the figures very wrong and others got them right is that, by basing turnout patterns on what happened in 2015 some polls missed out on a genuine surge in youth turnout, therefore understating Labour support, and that polls showing higher youth turnout were closer to the actual result. However, if youth turnout didn’t actually rise then this explanation seems far less convincing. My own view is that the way turnout models were done was probably still a major factor in the error, but it may be more a case of how they were done rather than the principle (besides, there were some approaches, like the YouGov MRP model, that used demographics in their turnout modelling and did well). More on that issue another time.

In the meantime, there’s a summary of the BES findings on youth turnout here and their full paper is here.


562 Responses to “Some thoughts on the BES turnout data and the absent “youthquake””

1 8 9 10 11 12
  1. Prof Howard

    Thanks for that info from the FT.

    Despite the certainty that so many (on this site and elsewhere) seem to have about the future, I am increasingly unsure whether it’s going to be a fudged deal that effectively keeps us in the EU orbit (but with less influence than Iceland), or that we crash out in a no deal scenario, where we haven’t got a clue as to what the WTO quota or tariff arrangement would be.

    What seems increasingly unlikely is the kind of ideal EU-UK deal that a number of Leavers have been postulating.

  2. @Laszlo.

    I am often a little confused by what you write, but this time you’ve utterly lost me.

  3. “As to the consequences of a vote, well in theory they could be incredibly dramatic. One MP being elected by one vote in one constituency in a drawn election could be the difference between, say, replacing Trident or scrapping the deterrent, or repealing the Abortion Act, or legalising drugs, or abolishing the Human Rights Act. And in a referendum, that one vote could mean (apparently) an 8% drop in the country’s GDP, pushing hundreds of thousands into poverty.”

    ——-

    Of course, you can argue the same about not letting them vote. If as a result it lets through s policy that could mean a drop in the country’s GDP etc. that wouldn’t have happened if they’d voted etc…

  4. “The direct consequences of driving a car badly are very likely to be far worse than voting badly.”

    ——-

    At least with voting, the options are constrained to just a few things or parties. It’s not like you can just decide to vote for everyone to be force-fed blue smarties.

    (Admittedly, the options might all be bad, but still….)

  5. @Carfrew

    Of course, but the argument being presented is “it’s a good lesson in political engagement, and practice for the more important aspects of adulthood that we’ll let them do when they’re older”.

    My point is that indirectly it’s the single most important thing that a person can do, and if you’re too immature to decide that you should be allowed to buy superglue, or a kitchen knife, or drive a transit van, or leave education, or decide who you can go to bed with, or buy alcohol and cigarettes….

    then you’re probably too immature to make the Big Decisions – like who gets to hold our nuclear button (yes I know there’s no such thing..)

    Naturally there are plenty of adults who are too immature to be trusted with glue, or knives, or alcohol. And there are plenty of 16 year olds that I’d be quite comfortable to watch building something with a stanley knife and araldite whilst sipping a pilsner. But for me it is a question of principle. We are unable to judge people’s competence on a case-by-case basis, and are forced to do so with an age-limit. There should be consistency.

  6. @Al Urqa
    On prisoners voting. Don’t forget David Cameron told him the idea of it made him feel physically sick. It was at that point that I lost the final vestige of respect I had had for him. Imbecilic.

    On referendums I would advocate weighted voting based upon the number of years the decision was likely to affect you. So, taking a notional death age of 80 (I bow to experts as to whether this is a good benchmark) for something that is permanent (for example – oh – what about Brexit) a 65 YO like me would be awarded 15 votes whereas someone of 18 would receive 62 votes. As a special concession, those of 85 or over would be awarded an honorary vote and a slice of edible ceremonial cake.

    I would not apply this principle to ordinary elections of here today, gone tomorrow politicians as it would be a bit too complicated

  7. @Guymonde

    I like it. And no votes for the terminally ill and those planning to emigrate?

    On prisoners, I rather agree with you. As much as I am (you won’t be too surprised to learn) a bit of a hawk on penal policy, it seems to me that incarceration itself is the punishment. Removing someone’s democratic voice seems at complete right-angles to what punishment is supposed to be about.

  8. Guymonde

    That’s perhaps a more sophisticated version of my earlier graduated weighting system for votes cast by those aged less than 25 or over 65.

    If normal actuarial principles were to be applied, however, it would lead to a reduction in the voting strength of poorer men, and increase the voting weight of richer women.

  9. Just wait till the robots come and demand the vote!

    (If the criteria is only being informed and capable of making as good a judgement as the average voter, I wouldn’t put that too far in the future!)

  10. @Alan

    Hey, the robots can vote. Just as long as they’re allowed to die in battle, drive trucks and buy carving knives.

  11. Neil A

    The first two won’t be that far away. The last seems like it would make for an awesome prank.

  12. Neil A: On prisoners, … it seems to me that incarceration itself is the punishment. Removing someone’s democratic voice seems at complete right-angles to what punishment is supposed to be about.

    I agree. The thing you want to happen is for the offender to buy into the values of society and move on to a life where they engage fully with society. Taking their vote away is just reducing their stake in a normal functioning society.

    EXCEPT I would take the vote away for electoral offences.

  13. @Oldnat

    You disappoint me. Your demographic over-complication of my model – elegant in its simplicity, though I say so myself – should surely be adapted for different polities before worrying about trivia like gender and socio-economic group.
    My research indicates the appropriate figure for England is 81.3 and for Scotland 79.15. Being generous by nature I would concede a 0.15 of a vote subsidy to Scotland and round up to 82 and 80

  14. Guymonde

    A generous offer indeed!

    Though, as NHS England continues to perform as badly compared with NHS Scotland in the future, we would need to build in a regular revaluation of such inter-polity weightings. :-)

  15. Oldnat

    The idea of being in the Single Market and Customs Union for goods but not services is one that Irish economists have been floating for a while. Its interesting (if the FT are right) that the government is working on this. Certainly I can see why they want to keep things secret – if presented at the last minute as either (i) this deal albeit not all you wanted and (ii) crashing and burning then one would hope the hard brexit crowd would see how unpopular they would be if they went for (ii). But you might be right – (ii) looks like a real possibility.

    PS That age-weight idea for voting is such a wonkish idea I didn’t think you were such a wonk. That’s a compliment by the way.

  16. Obviously only a local election by-election but amazing result for the Lib Dems in Sunderland

    Ldem 53.9 (+49.5)
    Lab 34.8 (-15.9)
    Con 5.4 (-7.2)
    UKIP 4.2 (-24.7)
    Green 1.7 (-1.8)

  17. Prof Howard

    I’m glad that you were very careful when you typed “wonk”. :-)

  18. Sorry, should say a council ward in Sunderland called Pallion.

  19. Prof Howard

    I think this is the FT article you were referring to.

    https://www.ft.com/content/f4775024-0774-11e8-9650-9c0ad2d7c5b5?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6

    It seems to be being considered as an option following the transitional 2 years (oddly the same length of time that is considered appropriate to be a “young person” in the transition to adulthood).

  20. Neil A

    It was a tongue in cheek comment.

    One can find any excuse to exclude any group or just selective individuals from elections. There is simply no proper argument about it, and there cannot be (even if I quite like the pre-1936 election laws in the Sovietunion).

    It is a question of social consensus and political calculations even if some person have to be trampled upon by a horse. So, some arguments about maturity, being imprison or what have you is meaningless.

    —–_——————————-

    And to connect this to Brexit – I actually think the government is doing a sterling job. It cannot have a plan as it cannot create a solid coalition behind any of the alternatives, and the uncertainty is so high that any action is rational. So, not having a plan, and having very small, incremental movements and watching the resultants of these is perfectly meaningful even if it feels like a mess.

    The problem is not the way of leaving as both sides (the whole spectrum really) agreed on measuring the outcome on posterior outcomes – so there is nothing to measure the government actions against. It doesn’t mean effective or efficient – just there is no alternative, because everything is alternative.

    If you consider all these – May is doing extremely well. But she is doing extremely well because she triggered A50. So whether one praises May or condemns her – it’s not the negotiations – it’s the leaving.

    Of course at the current state of debates the two are conflated,and hence the fruitless debates. By all evidence, the UK shouldn’t leave the EU, and by all evidence the success or failure of the leaving and the government’s strategy is measured by indices somewhere in the future, i.e not measured. It’s all about consensus, rather than measures, and for the time being there is no consensus,and the argument about measures is a mere manifestation of the lack of consensus (see in more details in The Behavioural Theory of the Firm more than 50 years ago).

  21. Guymonde (9:59)
    “On referendums I would advocate weighted voting based upon the number of years the decision was likely to affect you. So, taking a notional death age of 80 (I bow to experts as to whether this is a good benchmark) for something that is permanent (for example – oh – what about Brexit) a 65 YO like me would be awarded 15 votes whereas someone of 18 would receive 62 votes.”

    I can only think this is a joke. Perhaps you don’t have children. Older people are not going to vote only on how something affects them directly, but are more likely to take into account the effect on future generations such as their children, grandchildren and so on. I suggest that many younger people do not have the perspective to see beyond the next ten years.
    ———————————————
    G’night all.

  22. @PETE B

    “Older people are not going to vote only on how something affects them directly, but are more likely to take into account the effect on future generations such as their children, grandchildren and so on. I suggest that many younger people do not have the perspective to see beyond the next ten years.”

    The problem being that many older people have no idea how the modern world works.

    It is tragic that you mean well but destroy livelihoods.

  23. @Pete B

    “I can only think this is a joke. Perhaps you don’t have children. Older people are not going to vote only on how something affects them directly, but are more likely to take into account the effect on future generations such as their children, grandchildren and so on. I suggest that many younger people do not have the perspective to see beyond the next ten years.”

    ——–

    Except there is data to suggest that to think otherwise is a joke. Firstly the polling data I put on here before, showing how many boomers didn’t plan to hand their property windfalls onto their descendents, but to spend it on themselves instead. (their descendents when polled expecting rather different).

    Secondly, the amount of benefits enjoyed by boomers which they then voted not to give their descendents, from full employment, free Uni education, cheap housing and bills etc. initially, then benefiting from the cheap sell off of public sector and council housing, then seeing their house prices (and possibly other assets) inflated, and the Building Society demutualisation windfalls, then having their own pension provisions etc. protected while others have to work longer for less.

    This is before we get to things like being in the EU during their career but then voting against it when no longer needing to work in the EU etc.

  24. Not that I wish to complicate Guymonde’s elegant model, but one might consider an adaptation whereby the more you earn, the more your voting rights are reduced. Because if you earn more than others, clearly one has to entertain the possibility the system is stacked too much your way and things need rebalancing. This might be especially the case of the wealth accrues due to windfalls like property prices or being a boomer.

    You could also combine this with age weighting too of course.

  25. Ah I see Oldnat already beat me to it. However I might still proffer that we could have voting rights based on whether you follow the cricket. I don’t see how you can be properly concerned with all things British without following the cricket. Especially when we are losing. Badly. Again.

  26. @Neil A

    “My point is that indirectly it’s the single most important thing that a person can do, and if you’re too immature to decide that you should be allowed to buy superglue, or a kitchen knife, or drive a transit van, or leave education, or decide who you can go to bed with, or buy alcohol and cigarettes….

    then you’re probably too immature to make the Big Decisions – like who gets to hold our nuclear button (yes I know there’s no such thing..)”

    ————

    This is to miss the essential point that there is insurance built into the system.

    At any age, as you note, there will be some who are too immature to handle knives or glue. However the individual consequences of an error with these items is potentially so great that we act to limit individual power.

    But voting is done in the aggregate. A single individual cannot do something so negative by themselves. Even if they wind up with the casting vote, a lot of other people must already have agreed with them.

    And you have to consider other dangers you are ignoring. For instance an unbalanced electorate, where boomers are in a position to keep voting for largesse for themselves at the expense of others.

  27. Frosty

    I’m guessing that the result in Sunderland has a lot to do with their version of HDV and if so vindicates labour party members in Haringey who deselected councilors who supported HDV. As I’m sure this board is aware the hard left lib Dems are opposed to HDV and other similar schemes that are being pushed by ‘moderate’ labour councils around the country

  28. Frosty

    I’m guessing that the result in Sunderland has a lot to do with their version of HDV and if so vindicates labour party members in Haringey who deselected councilors who supported HDV. As I’m sure this board is aware the hard left lib Dems are opposed to HDV and other similar schemes that are being pushed by ‘moderate’ labour councils around the country

  29. @Neil A

    The other issue of course is that you are going to use age as a determinant of fitness to vote, then for consistency you would have too look at introducing an age limit for pensioners too.

  30. @NEIL A

    “Hey, the robots can vote. Just as long as they’re allowed to die in battle, drive trucks and buy carving knives.”

    ——–

    Well we have drones in action already, autonomous driving is on its way so it’s just whether we let them buy knives then. And watch the cricket…

  31. Neil A,
    “If most votes are worthless, why get even more people to vote? What a waste of money, surely.”

    By that argument, none of us should vote.

    ” One MP being elected by one vote in one constituency in a drawn election could be the difference between, say, replacing Trident or scrapping the deterrent, or repealing the Abortion Act, or legalising drugs, or abolishing the Human Rights Act”

    Ok, show an example where any one of those possibilities has ever happened?

    “If voting changed anything they’d abolish it” Ken Livingstone. My point was that some of the other things we are not allowed to do, or are allowed to do earlier, are much more likely to impact us or society.

    This not least is a consequnce that the voting system makes most votes worthless, and even where they might change the local result, are still unlikely to change the ‘winner’, but even if they do a new government will change few polices from the last one. Labour and con operate a duopoly, where over time policy changesa little but generally the two copy each other and stay closely aligned. What more obvious examples than blairites or brexit policy?

  32. Well people in UK can get a driving licence at 17 if they pass a test and then have to reapply at 70 and every 3 years thereafter.

    So voting could easily work the same, as long as you can devise a suitable test.

  33. Laszlo: And to connect this to Brexit – I actually think the government is doing a sterling job. It cannot have a plan as it cannot create a solid coalition behind any of the alternatives, and the uncertainty is so high that any action is rational. So, not having a plan, and having very small, incremental movements and watching the resultants of these is perfectly meaningful even if it feels like a mess.

    What is missing is leadership. What we have is a kind of feedback loop with no input which is I believe just hardening attitudes from the immediate post referendum position. The normal situation is to have the government set an agenda and moderate according to reaction. And the opposition set an alternative agenda.

    To my mind, it is actually quite dangerous, because it seems to me that it is setting in divisions which will become permanent and defining, along the lines of the Morlocks and the Eloi from HG Wells which will endure across generations regardless of what actually happens with brexit – divisions which will be defining for almost every big decision the country faces.

    Corbyn is the person who could do most by actually opposing the government and given what you describe in the part of the government, it is part of his job description.

    But I fear that he is too keen to let the tories own brexit, to the extent that he is neglecting the longer term consequences of leaving them unchallenged. I suspect that as and when he gets to government, post brexit, every issue will be so tribally polarised that he has little option to proceed with everything in the way the tories are now with brexit.

  34. @Carfrew

    “However I might still proffer that we could have voting rights based on whether you follow the cricket. I don’t see how you can be properly concerned with all things British without following the cricket.”

    *County* cricket that is, Carfrew.

  35. neil A,
    “My point is that indirectly it’s the single most important thing that a person can do”

    Please get some proportion here! Nigel Farge did something important, and it wasnt voting. Bill gates did something important. Voters do not cause significant changes, party leaders and policy formers do. Voters are cannon fodder who individually have little impact on the system, and not that much en masse.

    I seem to recall a few occasions when people have made significant political impact, and it is always by direct action. Acting outside the election system, or as I said by manipulating the two parties.

    Oldnat,
    “If normal actuarial principles were to be applied, however, it would lead to a reduction in the voting strength of poorer men, and increase the voting weight of richer women.”

    Not sure about that. my instinct is that the increased weight to the young (where all social groups would still be alive) would outweigh the lonegevity of certain groups, whose vote’s weighting would be sharply reduced by the age that dieoff became significant.

    But if 10 year olds were given votes, I imagine everyone concerned would make it their business to ensure they understood what it was about, so as to be able to make an informed decision.If this was taken seriously in schools, the net result might be adults far better informed abut choosing who to vote for.

    Profhoward,
    ” if presented at the last minute”

    The last, minute is nearly here. Some might say it already is.

  36. Technicolour October,
    “But I fear that he is too keen to let the tories own brexit, to the extent that he is neglecting the longer term consequences of leaving them unchallenged”

    The tories have already moved of their own volition from hard brexit to something very soft (though they are trying hard to avoid being definite and throw confusion everywhere). Labour has accomplished that by simply existing and saying nothing.

    Had they entered the recent election on a clear remain ticket, probably the tories would have done better than they did. My perception is that the general consensus is creeping towards remain issue by issue, and we might now have reached the tipping point where labour would benefit by going hard remain. But all the time this continues without their intervention, the drift to remain continues.

    Labour’s problem in taking any stance short of remain is that it would then define their position and impede rather than assist any further shift to remain.

  37. Carfrew – 2.11 a.m.

    Cricket as a fundamental component of what it is to be British??

    Two thoughts:

    1. There is no ‘we’ (UK or GB) to be ‘losing again. Badly. Again.’ I think the people losing represent the English and possibly the Welsh, but certainly not the Scots or the Northern Irish.

    2. A recent report suggested (if I remember correctly) that Scotland has more cricketers (or maybe cricket clubs) per head of the population than has England.

    Strange world!

    As to having some sort of game or sport as the marker for voting rights, lets make a thorough knowledge of the rules of Curling a prerequisite for voting in UK elections……..

  38. OLDNAT

    TREVOR W

    I have not yet read all I want to read from this excellent summary of some important aspects of Brexit. If you want to know more about TRQs (throw EU TRQS under a bus, Trevor?) schedules, modification and rectification this is useful, I think.

    The work needed to unbundle the EU/UK schedules in the EU/WTO relationship is going on quietly. It is potentially difficult and a great deal of work.

    https://tradebetablog.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/six-things-since-referendum/

  39. Trevor Warne,
    ” read the whole post, no skimming, skipping and out of context quote cherry picking please!””

    Do you mean you want me to stop picking out points people make which unfortunately demonstrate the opposite of the argument they are trying to make?

    I had a look back, but it isnt clear which comment of mine you refer to. Was it the preceding,

    TW:” Remainers like yourself want to discuss the decimal places ”
    Danny: “As a remainer, I think the models need the decimal place moved one digit right. (ie 0.5% growth loss in fact 5% growth loss). I find the argument convincing that the Uk ought to be doing far better than it is at this point in the economic cycle, and indeed was showing signs of this before the referendum arrived. It is credible that there has already been a pretty huge hit from Brexit, which stretches back to 2015 or earlier when UKIP started to gain ground, and specifically when the tories committed to a referendum. (and is visible in the exchange rate data when the pound started its slide from $1.60)”

    I appreciate this was an entirely different argument to the one you were seeking to make about problems modelling the effects of Brexit, but I thought quite a strong one. Brexit supporters are not keen to admit the hit to the economy started much earlier in the campaign. If not for Brexit we might now be having a balanced budget, and £350m a week for the NHS!

  40. I say what I’ve always said about Labour’s ongoing tactics:

    “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”

  41. @John B

    I did wonder when Scots might chirp up about that

    You’re moaning needlessly again. For a start, Scotland does have a cricket team you know. Cricket is not uniquely English.

    And thus “we” should be taken to mean when any of the Brit teams lose badly, which is quite often! It’s weird that you can only think in terms of some GB team.

    Although, you know, another way of looking at it is that if one of us suffers then we all suffer kinda thing. One likes to see Scotland do well too!! You may not feel the same way about others, but beware the narcissism of nationalism etc!

  42. @John B

    I did wonder about curling myself, but I don’t know to what extent other nations in the union do curling. You may have more info on that. But I don’t have any objection to more of us doing curling, especially if whisky is involved at some point.

  43. I must say in some ways I am glad my computer was down until yesterday. I obviously missed yet more nonsense about leaving the EU following the leaking of that dubious treasury report. I think even Remainers will accept that most treasury officials are hopelessly biased against a clean break from the EU and the report is therefore totally biased and should be disregarded.

    Have a good day all. Walking and Rugby today.

    Pete B

    On voting age I have always felt that those over 60 should have double the votes of those under 60 due to our acquired wisdom, seen clearly in the referendum result.

    :-)

  44. @Chris Riley

    “*County* cricket that is, Carfrew”

    ——–

    Soz Chris, but it seems to have progressed to curling at the minute…

  45. TOH

    “…hopelessly biased and should be disregarded”

    I find myself applying that principle to a lot of messages here.

  46. “My point is that indirectly it’s the single most important thing that a person can do”

    ——–

    Hmm. Is it really. It’s notable that you qualify it with “indirectly”, so it doesn’t have to go up against a cure for cancer, say.

    However, what if you indirectly fostered a cure for cancer by funding it. Versus only having a vote in a safe seat.

    Or what if you don’t vote, but you’re an opinion former who got fifty other people to vote a certain way? In a marginal seat.

    What if instead of voting, you joined a protest and got a change in the law you couldn’t have enacted by voting even if you’d been allowed to vote. Especially in a safe seat?

    What about instead of voting in a safe seat, you join a polling panel or focus group and influence policy that way?

  47. Howard – perhaps the over 80s should get triple votes?

  48. @TOH – I suspect a lot of people would share your sentiment.

  49. “The first two won’t be that far away. The last seems like it would make for an awesome prank.”

    Not sure the carving knife is any further really? “, buy carving knife”

  50. ok stuff in pointy brackets doesn’t work.

    That was supposed to say “alexa/google/whatever, buy carving knife”

1 8 9 10 11 12