goddamnedtwisto posted:

Election book

Namtab posted:

Wasn't she shadow health before?

dispatch_async posted:

Her two closest advisors are briefing against each other on the front page of the Times today. Now Lynton Crosby is in charge, after his notable successes running the campaigns of Stephen Harper and Zac Goldsmith. Boris Johnson is going to be much more visible from now onwards. She'll almost certainly still win, but none of this points to it being smooth sailing.

Hoops posted:

UK pollsters got Brexit and the 2015 GE so wrong that I've got a half-hunch they may have overcorrected their modelling of shy voters, leading to an overestimate of Tory support. Although equally they may just be wrong again and The Tories will beat polling.

I don't see them getting below 38-39%, so i think the majorities etc will be decided by how much Labour can win back minority party votes. It has definitely gotten more unpredictable.

quote:

On average, U.K. polls this far out have missed the final margin by 6 percentage points. And they don’t get all that much more accurate as you go along — the final polling average has missed the result by 5 points. The experience in Brexit last year — when the polls missed the final margin by 4 points according to the Huffington Post polling average or 6 points according to the method I described above — wasn’t a big outlier by U.K. standards. The same goes for the previous U.K. general election in 2015, when they underestimated Conservatives by around 6 points. Polls in 2010 were quite good in diagnosing the Conservative-Labour margin, although they considerably overestimated Liberal Democrats’ performance.

May’s Conservatives do have a massive lead, with recent polls showing them 9 to 21 points ahead of Labour and their unpopular leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Also, while the polls in the U.K. haven’t been very accurate, they’ve tended to underestimate Conservatives rather than Labour in the past. (See also: the Shy Tory Factor.)

But if polls are missing election outcomes by 5 or 6 points on average, that means the margin of error (or 95 percent confidence interval) is very large indeed. Specifically, a 6-point average error in forecasting the final margin translates to a true margin of error of plus or minus 13 to 15 percentage points, depending on how you calculate it.

dispatch_async posted:

Also it's worth remembering what Nate Silver said at the start of the campaign about how accurate UK polls generally are: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-u-k-snap-election-is-riskier-than-it-seems/

Zephro posted:

Put me down for

CON: 342
LAB: 221
LD: 8
Other: 79

With the charity being "your nearest food bank."

edit: I can't add

Kegluneq posted:

Has anyone else had one of these delivered? 12 pages of this guff. I can't remember if it's been brought up here yet.



The Theresa May And Her Team Party

forkboy84 posted:

Seriously, who here has even said they have confidence in Abbott as Home Secretary? Away & shite you boring oval office.

Hoops posted:

UK pollsters got Brexit and the 2015 GE so wrong that I've got a half-hunch they may have overcorrected their modelling of shy voters, leading to an overestimate of Tory support. Although equally they may just be wrong again and The Tories will beat polling.

I don't see them getting below 38-39%, so i think the majorities etc will be decided by how much Labour can win back minority party votes. It has definitely gotten more unpredictable.

dispatch_async posted:

it's worth remembering what Nate Silver said

ozmunkeh posted:

This is almost never the case, fyi.

ozmunkeh posted:

This is almost never the case, fyi.

Stabbatical posted:

Just wondering with the way our FPTP works, is it possible for a major party to get a larger vote share than another but get less seats over all? E.g. Imaginary scenario where Labour get 35% of the vote but 250 or so seats, Tories get 33% of the vote but 300 or so seats.

Obviously it's possible for smaller parties to get shafted/disproportionately rewarded compared to their vote share because our system is a joke. Just wondering if we could get a government which actually had less votes than its loyal opposition (rather than just less votes than all of its opponents put together).

Stabbatical posted:

Just wondering with the way our FPTP works, is it possible for a major party to get a larger vote share than another but get less seats over all? E.g. Imaginary scenario where Labour get 35% of the vote but 250 or so seats, Tories get 33% of the vote but 300 or so seats.

Obviously it's possible for smaller parties to get shafted/disproportionately rewarded compared to their vote share because our system is a joke. Just wondering if we could get a government which actually had less votes than its loyal opposition (rather than just less votes than all of its opponents put together).

Stabbatical posted:

Just wondering with the way our FPTP works, is it possible for a major party to get a larger vote share than another but get less seats over all? E.g. Imaginary scenario where Labour get 35% of the vote but 250 or so seats, Tories get 33% of the vote but 300 or so seats.

Obviously it's possible for smaller parties to get shafted/disproportionately rewarded compared to their vote share because our system is a joke. Just wondering if we could get a government which actually had less votes than its loyal opposition (rather than just less votes than all of its opponents put together).

Zephro posted:

Put me down for

CON: 342
LAB: 221
LD: 8
Other: 79

With the charity being "your nearest food bank."

edit: I can't add

Verizian posted:

Pretty much. Labour tends to do well in the cities but a rural seat is still a seat even if it has 1/10th the population of a seat in London.

Stabbatical posted:

Just wondering with the way our FPTP works, is it possible for a major party to get a larger vote share than another but get less seats over all? E.g. Imaginary scenario where Labour get 35% of the vote but 250 or so seats, Tories get 33% of the vote but 300 or so seats.

Obviously it's possible for smaller parties to get shafted/disproportionately rewarded compared to their vote share because our system is a joke. Just wondering if we could get a government which actually had less votes than its loyal opposition (rather than just less votes than all of its opponents put together).

jabby posted:

My ray of hope is the audience questions from both Sky and the Question Time special, since they are more likely to swing towards topics that are good for Corbyn and bad for May rather than just regurgitating Tory attack lines.

dispatch_async posted:

LemonDrizzle posted:

Most seats are approximately equalised by population every so often - excluding island constituencies, just about every currently existing parliamentary constituency has 60k voters +/- 10k IIRC. Also, Labour constituencies tend to be less heavily populated than Tory ones rather than the other way around, which is why the boundary review was set to be bad for Labour.

e: actually, it's apparently 70k +/- 10k rather than 60k.

Kegluneq posted:

Fortunately competence isn't a requirement for Health Secretary.

The One Show interview gets a prominent screenshot. It's mostly photographs of Theresabot meeting Hard Working People and Middle Aged White Men In A Pub, along with soundbitey (and almost wholly meaningless) speech excerpts.

Edit: The schools bit is literally just 'more institutes of technology' without explaining what they are.

Jose posted:

i thought it was the other way round. the boundary review was going to be based off voters rather than population?

Rakosi posted:

What's the likelihood and impact of the UK turning itself into the planets biggest corporate tax haven to mitigate economical losses of a trade-hostile EU?

BobbyThompson posted:

Is there anyway you could scan the bastard? I've looked everywhere for a copy online to no avail.

edit : Also, does it have a wordsearch?

Al-Saqr posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhG1ZNxwCaA

Holy poo poo is all british media this loving terrible?

: IS IT TRUE YOURE A DANGER TO ALL OF BRITAIN AND YOU LOVE TERRORISM

: "Gives thorough explanation but is cut off"

BUT HOW WILL WE FEEL SAFE YOU KEEP SUCKING TERRORIST COCK?! ALSO LOL LOOK AT ABBOTS AFRO

DesperateDan posted:

Electoral poo poo through my doorstep so far roundup

An independent who claims he's here to rock the boat as a traditionalist with a safe pair of hands. AFAIR, he's ex tory councillor

Rakosi posted:

What's the likelihood and impact of the UK turning itself into the planets biggest corporate tax haven to mitigate economical losses of a trade-hostile EU?