Turnout hasn't often borne much correlation to how well Tories or Labour do - for instance, turnout was consistently higher during the Thatcher & Major years than the Blair-Brown ones. It also - before the more recent elections - tended to be higher in Conservative seats than in Labour areas, and the highest-turnout election in modern times (1992) saw the Tories - not Labour - do much better than polls expected.
Personally I wasn't really advocating in favour of "only Labour benefits from high turnout all the time". I was just saying that it would have been the case here.
How would those Labour voters who stayed home in previously loyal constituencies have voted? No way to know, of course, but the idea that Labour was defeated by low turnout or 'suppressed votes' (who exactly was doing the suppressing?) I just don't find believable. Certainly the opinion polls pointed almost exactly to yesterday's outcome, so it seems unlikely that turnout rates disproportionately benefited one side or the other.
My hypothesis is based on the phenomenon that at least (most) core voters of a specific party tend be more likely to stay at home and not vote at all rather than to suddenly switch to the opposing party they never cared to vote for. Because the latter represents a much higher psychological threshold the core voter needs to overcome (which in turn forms the very basis of actual voter suppression tactics and explains why they work). But maybe "suppressed" was the wrong choice of words here. If anything, Corbyn and Labour managed to suppress themselves of course.
