What is the best flav... you all know what this question is: This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Labour | 907 | 49.92% | |
Theresa May Team (Conservative) | 48 | 2.64% | |
Liberal Democrats | 31 | 1.71% | |
UKIP | 13 | 0.72% | |
Plaid Cymru | 25 | 1.38% | |
Green | 22 | 1.21% | |
Scottish Socialist Party | 12 | 0.66% | |
Scottish Conservative Party | 1 | 0.06% | |
Scottish National Party | 59 | 3.25% | |
Some Kind of Irish Unionist | 4 | 0.22% | |
Alliance / Irish Nonsectarian | 3 | 0.17% | |
Some Kind of Irish Nationalist | 36 | 1.98% | |
Misc. Far Left Trots | 35 | 1.93% | |
Misc. Far Right Fash | 8 | 0.44% | |
Monster Raving Loony | 49 | 2.70% | |
Space Navies Party | 39 | 2.15% | |
Independent / Single Issue | 2 | 0.11% | |
Can't Vote | 188 | 10.35% | |
Won't Vote | 8 | 0.44% | |
Spoiled Ballot | 15 | 0.83% | |
Pissflaps | 312 | 17.17% | |
Total: | 1817 votes |
|
Last time the space navies party came up I accidentally insulted them by implying they werent registered Turns out i was wrong http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP549
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:41 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:39 |
|
I took that poll and it turns out I'm 60% Green, 20% Labour, and 20% Lib Dem. Zero percent Space Navies is surprising to me. But I did have to do a lot of guessing on what some of the policies meant
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:43 |
|
now admittedly that doesn't answer my questions directly but I am still 100% on board <--- look here
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:43 |
|
spectralent posted:"Limit access to foreign nationals" means "People who work and live here and pay taxes to fund this health service, who may even work in this health services, should Go Home if they want medical care for anything less than a heart attack". Now explain why some people want to do away with fuel subsidies for flights and not expand your airports?
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:44 |
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Now explain why some people want to do away with fuel subsidies for flights and not expand your airports? Green party, one would assume? They're basically luddites.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:44 |
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Well as it was presented to me...
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:45 |
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Now explain why some people want to do away with fuel subsidies for flights and not expand your airports? It is an island, you can only expand airports so much
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:45 |
|
Still watching the debate - Caroline Lucas is great, isn't she Leanne Wood is also good. Whoever the SNP bloke is has come across pretty well too, and Farron has actually seemed alright as well. Nuttall and Rudd utter poo poo
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:46 |
|
It's easy to find the ukip one because they're the only ones that talk about restricting foreign nationals when it comes to healthcare.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:46 |
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Now explain why some people want to do away with fuel subsidies for flights and not expand your airports? Fuel subsidy for flight would make flying cheaper to operate and lead to under-valuing of a carbon source, I assume. Opposing that would be trying to financially encourage people to make less flights. Remember this is the UK, if you need to get to most places in the UK it's like a 6-8 hour train ride at most, there's really no reason to fly within-country. Airport expansion's a contentious issue since we really really want to have The Biggest Airport Ever but it'd probably be better if we were expanding airport capacity all around the country.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:47 |
|
Paperhouse posted:Still watching the debate - Caroline Lucas is great, isn't she Leanne Wood is also good. Whoever the SNP bloke is has come across pretty well too, and Farron has actually seemed alright as well. Nuttall and Rudd utter poo poo On reflection Farrons Cheeky Chappy routine was significantly more embarrassing than Mays no-show.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:47 |
|
But also yeah the main reason I can never vote green ever is because I studied a science and the Greens either don't understand or don't care about science.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:48 |
|
Vitamin P posted:On reflection Farrons Cheeky Chappy routine was significantly more embarrassing than Mays no-show. Remember that your baseline for that is Tim Farron Existing. spectralent posted:But also yeah the main reason I can never vote green ever is because I studied a science and the Greens either don't understand or don't care about science. In fairness nor do most politicians.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:48 |
|
spectralent posted:Fuel subsidy for flight would make flying cheaper to operate and lead to under-valuing of a carbon source, I assume. Opposing that would be trying to financially encourage people to make less flights. Remember this is the UK, if you need to get to most places in the UK it's like a 6-8 hour train ride at most, there's really no reason to fly within-country. 6 to 8 hours is a long period of time. If I could fly for a reasonable price as I understand you can in England to these places that I go in America I would. But from my airport a 1.5 hour flight cost $400 and a 3-4 one costs $700. And those are local within the us. Not international.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:50 |
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Now explain why some people want to do away with fuel subsidies for flights and not expand your airports?
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:50 |
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:6 to 8 hours is a long period of time. If I could fly for a reasonable price as I understand you can in England to these places that I go in America I would. That is the point.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:51 |
|
Vitamin P posted:On reflection Farrons Cheeky Chappy routine was significantly more embarrassing than Mays no-show. His opening speech was laughable but he's had some decent rebuttals so far I don't get why some of the other left parties are attacking Corbyn and Labour on anything that's not the target man
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:51 |
|
Following the UK election helps me cope with living in Trumpland. Thanks guys.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:52 |
|
I've been bored and trying to avoid things, so I decided to go poke around at these magical new YouGov polls and projections that we're all relying on for a little hope, instead of the diabolical TNS ones that Theresa May is taking to bed with her at night. YouGov has also produced a very clever thingy which is currently attempting to give (sort of) bespoke constituency-by-constituency results rather than trying to extrapolate from a national uniform swing (a concept that's been steadily declining towards irrelevance since 2010). What I was trying to do was figure out how they think Labour might get near the Times headline projection of a hung parliament. Since the referendum I've been absolutely fascinated by the potential effect of voters who went for UKIP in 2015 thinking "job done" and going back to an established party; there are a lot of constituencies out there, the pattern is repeated again and again, in which the incumbent MP has a reasonable-but-not-safe majority of somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000. The UKIP vote is higher than the majority (so if they all switched to the party who finished second in 2015, the seat would flip), and there's also somewhere between 1,500 and 4,000 (again, depending on the constituency) combined Lib Dem and Green voters who might just be tempted to vote tactically this time. I reckon these are the seats they're looking at; they're thinking that there's a reasonable chance of Labour taking enough of them off the Tories, and holding on when they hold a seat with those demographics, to swing it. (n.b. this ignores the potential effect of increased youth turnout because I've seen enough elections to believe that when I see it and not before) Here's an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. Hastings & Rye is a Tory-held seat with a majority of 4,796 (9.4% of all votes cast). The UKIP vote last time was 6,786 (11%). The Lib Dems and Greens combine for about 3,500 votes. The current YouGov prediction* has the seat pissing all over national swing, with Labour winning on about 45%, the Tories on about 42%, and UKIP nowhere at about 5%. There's also a major comedy wild card here that they don't mention or attempt to quantify; this is Amber Rudd's seat. God knows what that's going to mean. The election is full of these seats: Ipswich, Reading East, Dudley North, Middlesbrough South & East Cleveland. They're going to be where the election is decided. Which way does the UKIP vote swing, are the kids going to turn out, and are there any local peculiarities? *Even YouGov themselves don't really know because they can't poll most individual constituencies in enough detail, so are trying to guess based on cleverly extrapolating from people they are polling in other constituencies, and weighting them and unskewing them and . The headline numbers in H&R are a predicted 45-42 Labour victory, but you look at that for half a second and you quickly see that there's a gargantuan margin of error; the actual prediction is Labour on anywhere between 38% and 52%, and the Tories on anywhere between 36% and 47%. And the worst-case scenario of the Tories on 47% and Labour on 38% in the constituency lines up nicely inside the margin of error on that national TNS poll. They don't loving know what the seat breakdown's going to be! Nobody knows. But it's fun when the Times splashes their numbers on the front page as gospel... (There's also a second interesting category; seats where UKIP finished in second place, or with more than 10,000 votes, or both. Penistone & Stocksbridge has a Labour majority of over 6,000. UKIP were third last time on 10,738. This constituency literally has the potential to turn into an ultra-safe Labour seat, or a safe Tory seat. Rotherham; 8,400 majority for Labour, 11,400 UKIP voters out there who boosted them into second last time.)
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:53 |
|
TACD posted:You can't realistically tackle climate change while also farting out an ever-increasing number of jumbo jets. Sure you can. 20%-30% of carbon emissions come from livestock. Only like 10% come from planes. If that. Planes are pretty green compared to cars.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:53 |
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:6 to 8 hours is a long period of time. If I could fly for a reasonable price as I understand you can in England to these places that I go in America I would. That's because your airlines are bad. You can quite easily get £100 2-hour flights around the EU, so airfares are cheap enough subsidy isn't needed, decreased emissions are. Nothingtoseehere fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:54 |
|
Paperhouse posted:His opening speech was laughable but he's had some decent rebuttals so far Realistically their votes are going to come from Labour voters. See: recent Scottish politics
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:55 |
|
Paperhouse posted:His opening speech was laughable but he's had some decent rebuttals so far If the Lib Dems can siphon off enough of Labour's support they can play kingmaker again and get back into coalition with the Tories.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:56 |
|
OwlFancier posted:In fairness nor do most politicians. They make less of a big deal about the environment, though, and the environment is fundamentally a scientific, evidence-based issue. If you care about the environment, pay attention to scientists. Otherwise you're just doing hippy grandstanding. ISeeCuckedPeople posted:6 to 8 hours is a long period of time. If I could fly for a reasonable price as I understand you can in England to these places that I go in America I would. I did say "tops", Brighton to Aberdeen is 8 hours 30. But flying's not good for the environment, so I can understand why you'd want to limit it if you wanted a drastic programme to lower carbon emissions, which coincidentally we do.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:56 |
|
Tintowers been quiet lately
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:57 |
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Sure you can. 20%-30% of carbon emissions come from livestock. Only like 10% come from planes. If that. Planes are pretty green compared to cars. And far less so than trains. Trains are good. spectralent posted:They make less of a big deal about the environment, though, and the environment is fundamentally a scientific, evidence-based issue. If you care about the environment, pay attention to scientists. Otherwise you're just doing hippy grandstanding. I would probably argue that the prevailing attitude is that the environment doesn't really matter, which is also a bollockfeel position.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 00:58 |
|
How big is PISSFLAPS hard on?
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:00 |
|
OwlFancier posted:And far less so than trains. Well, yes, but "The environment doesn't matter, because capitalism" shouldn't be met with "the environment does matter, because ~gaia~".
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:03 |
|
spectralent posted:Well, yes, but "The environment doesn't matter, because capitalism" shouldn't be met with "the environment does matter, because ~gaia~". Not ideally no, but I'll take sappy hippies over people who are liable to gently caress us over out of malice. Alas most human activity is emotional, not cognitive, so any political party advocating for saving the planet is going to attract a lot of people who want to do that by singing at it and holding hands. What you'd want is the technocratic party, which sadly would also attract a bunch of silicon valley techbros, because you can even approach science in a cargo cult fashion. I mean I'm a bloody commie mostly out of a mix of spite and idealism so I don't feel qualified to complain about the greens. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jun 1, 2017 |
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:04 |
|
Namtab posted:Realistically their votes are going to come from Labour voters. See: recent Scottish politics Yeah but... do they want the Tories to win I mean I guess everyone know they will so
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:14 |
|
Paperhouse posted:Yeah but... do they want the Tories to win Probably?
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:14 |
|
deletebeepbeepbeep posted:How big is PISSFLAPS hard on? I'll tell you once I get done seducing him
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:15 |
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Sure you can. 20%-30% of carbon emissions come from livestock. Only like 10% come from planes. If that. Planes are pretty green compared to cars.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:16 |
|
Namtab posted:Tintowers been quiet lately #libdemfallback
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:18 |
|
forkboy84 posted:Planes are bad for nearby transport. It's just a wasteful way to travel if you're not going hundreds of miles. Britain just isn't a big enough island for it to be a necessity. Especially not if we renationalise the railways and actually make train travel affordable again. It's a loving outrage that it's almost half the cost to fly to London & back from Inverness get a return to London on the train. High-speed rail is the other way to cut right down on intra-UK flights but of course we can't do that because ~the fields~
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:19 |
|
nothing to seehere posted:That's because your airlines are bad. You can quite easily get £100 2-hour flights around the EU, so airfares are cheap enough subsidy isn't needed, decreased emissions are. The airlines would all convene together to do massive price hikes and blame the party who removed the subsidies and they would lose the next election based off that attack.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:20 |
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:The airlines would all convene together to do massive price hikes and blame the party who removed the subsidies and they would lose the next election based off that attack. This sounds very american (and very illegal)
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:21 |
|
Trin Tragula posted:I've been bored and trying to avoid things, so I decided to go poke around at these magical new YouGov polls and projections that we're all relying on for a little hope, instead of the diabolical TNS ones that Theresa May is taking to bed with her at night. YouGov has also produced a very clever thingy which is currently attempting to give (sort of) bespoke constituency-by-constituency results rather than trying to extrapolate from a national uniform swing (a concept that's been steadily declining towards irrelevance since 2010). I'm to drunk to contribute anything useful but thanks for a proper write up, interesting/exciting stuff
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:23 |
|
Julio Cruz posted:High-speed rail is the other way to cut right down on intra-UK flights but of course we can't do that because ~the fields~ Selfishly I'd settle for some of the sweet electrification of the Highland tracks. I get excited by the mere prospect of knocking 15 minutes off the journey from Inverness to Glasgow. ISeeCuckedPeople posted:The airlines would all convene together to do massive price hikes and blame the party who removed the subsidies and they would lose the next election based off that attack. Think you're over-estimating how important flying is in peoples lives. Reminder that Britain is actually not a big island.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:23 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:39 |
|
Trin Tragula posted:I've been bored and trying to avoid things, so I decided to go poke around at these magical new YouGov polls and projections that we're all relying on for a little hope, instead of the diabolical TNS ones that Theresa May is taking to bed with her at night. YouGov has also produced a very clever thingy which is currently attempting to give (sort of) bespoke constituency-by-constituency results rather than trying to extrapolate from a national uniform swing (a concept that's been steadily declining towards irrelevance since 2010). I do like it when pollsters try to ram it into the reader's skull that a confidence interval is a thing that might be relevant to analysis of a survey. The graph for Glasgow North is a fun one.
|
# ? Jun 1, 2017 01:24 |