|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Election book 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 Zephro fucked around with this message at 15:53 on May 28, 2017 |
# ? May 28, 2017 15:27 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 12:38 |
|
Namtab posted:Wasn't she shadow health before? She was shadow secretary for International Development which is basically a nothing position, after the chicken coup she was given health and then given her current role after Andy Burnham hosed off.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:31 |
|
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. Tuesday morning, May walks out dressed as a leprechaun and claims that Corbyn would rekindle The Troubles for political gain.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:31 |
|
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. 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/ 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 28, 2017 15:32 |
|
Personally I think we will get the cataclysmic 100+ tory gains but then I'm a complete pessimist. I did start feeling hope a week or two ago, felt confident Labour would hold on to Hove and win Kemptown locally but then you consider the fact UKIP who were worth circa 3k votes in those constituencies will no longer be fielding candidates and the situation looks pretty dire.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:33 |
|
CON: 276 LAB: 289 LD: 6 Other: 79 Charity: The conservative and unionist party of great britain e: or UNICEF. whichever you prefer.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:40 |
|
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/ Yeah but he even states there it's more likely to benefit the Tories than Labour.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:42 |
|
Zephro posted:Put me down for just a suggestion >. https://www.justgiving.com/m-c-f
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:43 |
|
Yeah as much as I'd feel sorry for everyone having to live with the resulting mess, little to no change in parliament would be the funniest outcome. Mayhem will neither have gained a mandate to potentially do what's necessary over the heads of the most insane Tories nor have lost enough of her mandate to have an excuse to ignore their screeching, so the only option is a slow-motion trainwreck. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 15:46 on May 28, 2017 |
# ? May 28, 2017 15:44 |
|
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. I like how every element in the top left looks like it's fighting to get at you, like you're a TV in the sales forkboy84 posted:Seriously, who here has even said they have confidence in Abbott as Home Secretary? Away & shite you boring oval office. All right I'll bite with this one, do we actually have any indication she'd be a bad Home Secretary? Unlike the shadow position it's not about being good in interviews or remembering figures, it's about policy development and overseeing the people who work with that policy. Is she incredibly bad at that? Aside from being an office that corrupts everyone who takes it, is there any indication things would be worse with her than, say, Theresa May's stunning record of achievements?
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:45 |
|
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 kind of think it may be the other way round in this election and the pollsters are missing 'shy Labourites', people who feel uncomfortable admitting they're voting for Corbyn but are going to go ahead and do it on the day.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:47 |
|
dispatch_async posted:it's worth remembering what Nate Silver said This is almost never the case, fyi.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:48 |
|
ozmunkeh posted:This is almost never the case, fyi. The guy who gave Trump the highest chance of anyone this side of the LA Times?
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:50 |
|
ozmunkeh posted:This is almost never the case, fyi. It's pretty much just a list of historical polling figures and election results. Are you saying the numbers are wrong?
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:51 |
|
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).
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:56 |
|
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. Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1951 Edit: and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_February_1974
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:58 |
|
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. This happened in 74 in the UK
|
# ? May 28, 2017 15:59 |
|
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.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:00 |
|
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.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:00 |
|
a re-run of '74 would be deeply funny imo
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:01 |
|
Zephro posted:Put me down for CON: 346 LAB: 224 LD: 5 OTHER: 75 Those numbers may look different but let me be very clear: nothing has changed. NOTHING HAS CHANGED
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:02 |
|
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. e: actually, it's apparently 70k +/- 10k rather than 60k. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 16:11 on May 28, 2017 |
# ? May 28, 2017 16:05 |
|
Spent today carting letters around for labour. Main target is upper middle class pensioners by the looks of the houses we were hitting.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:05 |
|
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. The popular vote is irrelevant, it's just about a set of individual local elections and who ends up winning the most of those. So you could easily have a large vote share concentrated in a relatively small number of seats - landslide victories for those, but a big win doesn't mean anything more than a close one. High turnout for Labour in a limited number of constituencies would do it
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:07 |
|
Electoral poo poo through my doorstep so far roundup First up is the labour candidate, new one this time around. Apparently I was at a party with her a few years back but I can't recall the details. Or the party. 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 the lolberal option, surprised they let this guy have another crack as he didn't even get his deposit back last time. maybe one of the other 6 lib dems could have a shot? Nowt from the greens, kippers or tories yet, given the demographics of the area I think it's likely the latter two won't even bother.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:10 |
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/868840252227674113
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:12 |
|
Put me down on: Con: 349 Lab: 218 LD: 7 Other 76 Charity: Planned Parenthood Montana, because at this electorate if that happens. edit: missed one seat, nothing else changed Private Speech fucked around with this message at 16:15 on May 28, 2017 |
# ? May 28, 2017 16:12 |
|
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. "There might have to be a couple of people taken out and shot" says Tory MP, less than a year after the shooting of Jo Cox.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:13 |
|
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. i thought it was the other way round. the boundary review was going to be based off voters rather than population?
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:14 |
|
Kegluneq posted:Fortunately competence isn't a requirement for Health Secretary. 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?
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:19 |
|
Jose posted:i thought it was the other way round. the boundary review was going to be based off voters rather than population?
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:26 |
|
Have they not already relaunched the campaign like twice?
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:27 |
|
oh good https://twitter.com/BraddJaffy/stat...1494%23lastpost
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:31 |
|
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?
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:34 |
|
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? 100%, total destruction
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:34 |
|
BobbyThompson posted:Is there anyway you could scan the bastard? I've looked everywhere for a copy online to no avail. Literally just threw out my old and lovely printer/scanner in a fit of pique after finding out that the ink cartridges cost more to replace than a new actual printer would, but I can take more photos later. It doesn't have a wordsearch sadly, just lots of Q&As with May written in a strange bullet point style (Turn to page 8 for more from the PM!) and Fun Fact Corners. The last page has the comparison between the odds on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn's leadership win, with the presumed message that at least two of these things are worse for Britain that the Conservatives would ordinarily admit.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:35 |
|
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
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:38 |
Al-Saqr posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhG1ZNxwCaA Yes
|
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:39 |
|
DesperateDan posted:Electoral poo poo through my doorstep so far roundup His use of apostrophes to show plural of an acronym really really irritates me. EDIT: Quoted the wrong one -I meant the independent guy Acaila fucked around with this message at 16:46 on May 28, 2017 |
# ? May 28, 2017 16:39 |
|
|
# ? Jun 10, 2024 12:38 |
|
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? the weird political economy of this is that if the people who would most want that outcome could have their way - big finance, fat cats, rootless cosmopolitans, etc - brexit would not have happened at all so, don't count on it. count on something populist.
|
# ? May 28, 2017 16:44 |