|
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/869555541080764418 https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/869556119693389825
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Get rid of elections, all seats are ballot drawn. The dictatorship of the civil service
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
More of this please. Can't help thinking McDonnell would have been a better choice of leader. Way more willing to play dirty and yell a bit. I imagine he would be crucified on the IRA stuff even more than Corbyn though tbh
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:The dictatorship of the civil service *Sir Humphrey smiles*
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:More of this please. Can't help thinking McDonnell would have been a better choice of leader. Way more willing to play dirty and yell a bit. I imagine he would be crucified on the IRA stuff even more than Corbyn though tbh I think the only reason Corbyn survives is that he puts on the "sweet old man" look that draws a lot of sympathy. McDonnell is a much better attack-dog, but would probably not have been acceptable as leader.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Finally government can get to work without all that bothersome politics
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
TheRat posted:https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/869555541080764418 I, for one, am shocked by the prospect that young people might go out and vote in larger numbers when somebody actually bothers to appeal to them.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:The dictatorship of the civil service I'd be absolutely fine with that, their ideas are a shitload better than those of ministers.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:What's great about this is how no deal is basically the worst possible outcome and nobody is calling her out on it. Paxman kept pushing her to say "I am prepared to walk away with no deal" last night and she wouldn't do it, just kept repeating her focus group catchphrase. He could have outright demanded that she say it but he let her off Every time this hypothetical bad deal is brought up, it's always basically 'no deal' with an added smack in the face, like 'no agreements plus you give us billions as punishment, muahaha!' Which means no deal is technically better (by definition), but we're always told that the EU wants a good, mutually beneficial deal where everything is great, so their own worst case scenario is something May doesn't believe would happen So it's either a pure bluff that the EU team will see through immediately, affecting nothing, or the Tories are genuinely prepared to walk us off a cliff if they don't get everything they want
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
I think this might be a clever stance to take. Could trigger a tiny tiny ounce of sympathy in some journalists. https://twitter.com/mikeysmith/status/869556783878213637
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
I actually bothered to check the numbers before, their "full unweighted" 50% doesn't match up to current registration numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I, for one, am shocked by the prospect that young people might go out and vote in larger numbers when somebody actually bothers to appeal to them. They won't though.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
I love the last paragraph because it's basically "we have no loving idea what's going on atm tbh"
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I love the last paragraph because it's basically "we have no loving idea what's going on atm tbh" Well, they do. They're just sceptical that 18-24 year olds will be as likely to vote as they're claiming.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
peanut- posted:They won't though. they've registered in numbers that would go well over what ICM are suggesting is their limit. Labour are pretty aware they need to hold their attention, and momentum and JC are spamming my feed with policies on childcare and education. I really don't think pushing for a 25 year high turnout is unreasonable. On its own it's not going to be enough, and it's what Labour can do to suppress the olds at this point.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I love the last paragraph because it's basically "we have no loving idea what's going on atm tbh" They're basically going "it's worked this way every other time so it must work this time too" which isn't very sensible
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:they've registered in numbers that would go well over what ICM are suggesting is their limit. Labour are pretty aware they need to hold their attention, and momentum and JC are spamming my feed with policies on childcare and education. I really don't think pushing for a 25 year high turnout is unreasonable. On its own it's not going to be enough, and it's what Labour can do to suppress the olds at this point. 82% would be a bit more than a 25 year high: https://twitter.com/election_data/status/869476398511140864 mfcrocker posted:They're basically going "it's worked this way every other time so it must work this time too" Why not?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
it's the culture police
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Those 2001/2005/2015 numbers are really loving depressing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:They're basically going "it's worked this way every other time so it must work this time too" It seems more sensible to rely on young peoples extremely robust track record of not voting than to assume a sudden and massive turnaround.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
peanut- posted:It seems more sensible to rely on young peoples extremely robust track record of not voting than to assume a sudden and massive turnaround. If everything was still the same yes. But where previous Labour parties were utterly uninteresting for young voters, Corbyn's Labour has done a fuckton to re-engage them.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
TheRat posted:Those 2001/2005/2015 numbers are really loving depressing. That 2010 spike was Cleggmania and the tuition fee promise.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
peanut- posted:It seems more sensible to rely on young peoples extremely robust track record of not voting than to assume a sudden and massive turnaround. *bets the house on remain* don't you know people always swing back to the status quo.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
You know I bet the reason your polls are so unreliable is actually due to 5 year terms.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:82% would be a bit more than a 25 year high: It's a little apples to oranges to compare voting intention percentages directly to voting record so you certainly don't need 82% to turn out to hit the survation poll numbers as-is. The same poll has 65+ at 88% likely to vote where the actual number is likely to be somewhere in the mid 70s.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Why not? peanut- posted:It seems more sensible to rely on young peoples extremely robust track record of not voting than to assume a sudden and massive turnaround. There's perhaps been a few instances in the last year or so that suggest that politics ain't quite what it used to be
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
So what would you guys say, if things keep going as they are right now, is the probability of Labour winning?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
orange sky posted:So what would you guys say, if things keep going as they are right now, is the probability of Labour winning? 5%
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
orange sky posted:So what would you guys say, if things keep going as they are right now, is the probability of Labour winning? Do you really want to know? Because the actual answer isn't particularly nice.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
There's a really weird thing happening where journalists who have been ultra-opposed to Corbyn/Labour appear to be turning around https://twitter.com/ThatTimWalker/status/869564507806461953
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Do you guys need a simple majority to pass legislation? With the current polls Tories wouldn't get that majority, right? Or do the winners get bonus seats or something (this is simply put the most retarded system ever tbh)
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
TheRat posted:Those 2001/2005/2015 numbers are really loving depressing. So yeah, all I'm saying is; I'm not loving surprised.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
TheRat posted:There's a really weird thing happening where journalists who have been ultra-opposed to Corbyn/Labour appear to be turning around shame keir starmer is a prick tho
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
orange sky posted:Do you guys need a simple majority to pass legislation? With the current polls Tories wouldn't get that majority, right? Or do the winners get bonus seats or something (this is simply put the most retarded system ever tbh) We have a first past the post parliamentary system. The Tories will get a majority of seats based on current polling.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Boy surprised you're that optimistic. I don't even know if I'd put Labour at a 5% of being able to form a coalition gov't with anyone. Keeping the Tories short of a majority is doable though also unlikely though. I'd put that at maybe 10-15% chance.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
orange sky posted:Do you guys need a simple majority to pass legislation? With the current polls Tories wouldn't get that majority, right? Or do the winners get bonus seats or something (this is simply put the most retarded system ever tbh) First Past The Post means Tories get absolute majority with current polls. In 2015 they got 50.8% of the seats from 36.9% of the vote share. waffle posted:Boy surprised you're that optimistic. I don't even know if I'd put Labour at a 5% of being able to form a coalition gov't with anyone. Keeping the Tories short of a majority is doable though also unlikely though. If I remember correctly, that's the odds betting companies are giving Labour majority at the moment.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:You know I bet the reason your polls are so unreliable is actually due to 5 year terms. I saw this thing on Nate Silver's website about the unreliability of British polling the other day (maybe from itt even) and was talking about it with  MY SPANISH GIRLFRIEND . Her opinion (and she said that this is shared by a lot of her spanish mates in the uk) is that we Britons are a pathologically insincere and emotionally stunted people, that we're incapable of being open or honest for fear of judgement by people around us, and that this applies even to ourselves and our loved ones so how the gently caress are we going to be honest with pollsters. I thought it was a little bit harsh and I cried later.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I saw this thing on Nate Silver's website about the unreliability of British polling the other day (maybe from itt even) and was talking about it with As a foreign, your girlfriend is 100% on the money and sounds like a good lass.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
orange sky posted:So what would you guys say, if things keep going as they are right now, is the probability of Labour winning? Electoral Calculus currently has it at about 19% if you count Lab majority and various potential coalition choices all as wins. That's with polling data that only goes up to the 27th so potentially 20+%. Hard to do anything more than guess at this point, really. So many unknowns particularly in terms of turnout that might render all polling wrong to the point of irrelevance.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:37 |
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I saw this thing on Nate Silver's website about the unreliability of British polling the other day (maybe from itt even) and was talking about it with But not in front of her, right?!?!?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2017 15:50
|
|
