|
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 | ||
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Stabbatical posted:That's really interesting. The long and short of it is that we just don't know anymore because it's all gone weird and all of this run-up with the polling and predictions is a bit of a dog and pony show, just like in the US election then? The problem is different because the top three American elections can be polled in more granularity. You have a good state-level operation, you can poll for President (who isn't elected on the popular vote but by their insane electoral college), and for senators (who are elected statewide), and for Governor of the state. Repeat fifty times. The hole they fell down was the 1992 shy Tory problem; either people wouldn't admit they were voting Trump, or the pollsters couldn't find the Trump voters to know they were there. Most of the state-level polling was pretty much bang on; they just bollocksed up in the Rust Belt states and that threw their Electoral College calculations off. The modern British problem is like this. Constituencies are small, about 80,000 electors. It is all but impossible to find enough voters in any given constituency to poll it accurately, and always has been. It'd be like trying to find a fart in a jacuzzi. When opinion polling really got going, you had Labour over here, the Tories over there, and a few irrelevant hangers-on. So pollsters got quite good at taking national polls, and attempting to predict elections by using a mythical creature called the national uniform swing; if the Tories are 3% ahead, what does the House look like if every constituency swings 3% to the Tories? It was never ideal, but with a little luck and skill you could get a reasonable picture of what was probably going to happen, plus or minus ten seats, in all probability, as a general guide only (etc, etc). The key thing is that pollsters could be pretty drat sure that if you weren't going to vote Tory, then you were going to vote Labour. A lost Labour vote was automatically a gained Tory vote. In this election, national uniform swing is completely and totally irrelevant. Latest YouGov national poll says the Tories have a national lead of 3%. Back to Hastings & Rye. Latest YouGov model says Labour will win the seat by 3%. Which is completely opposed to what using the national poll to predict swing might tell you, because that doesn't take account of local conditions, or where the UKIP vote (predicted to almost entirely collapse, based on what I don't know) might go. Thurrock has a particularly egregious example of this sort of thing (you could write an entire paper on what's happened there since 2005). Last election, it was a three-way marginal, Tories (16,692) won by 536 votes from Labour (16,156) and UKIP (15,718). Then the UKIP candidate Tim Aker falls out with his party; then the referendum comes back Leave; then there's a huge bunfight over the Lower Thames Crossing. YouGov currently calls it a tossup at 41-40 to the Tories, with UKIP plummeting from 31% of the vote to 15% (which is still ten points higher than their national performance) and their fleeing voters apparently splitting equally between red and blue. Except they don't loving know! The Tories could be anywhere from 35% to 47%; Labour could be 34% to 48%; UKIP 10% to 21%. National uniform swing can tell you that the UKIP vote is collapsing nationwide and therefore probably will in Thurrock also; what it can't tell you is how far it's collapsing in Thurrock, and who their voters will swing to (if anyone! they could just stay home!) The UKIP vote is completely and totally volatile in a way I don't think we've ever seen before, and if they do fall over and die because Brexit's robbed them of their raison d'etre, then we may well not see an election as volatile and unpredictable as this for a hundred years. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
jabby posted:As an amateur photographer I always get a little bit worried when people say that being photographed/filmed while out in public is a violation of your personal privacy. If you were going to do something about it, where do you draw the line between taking snapshots that happen to contain members of the public and unacceptable creeping on people? The line is at the exact moment when you start behaving like a creep. You may also wish to consider that, especially in the era of digital photography, some people have a very good reason for not wanting their photo taken by God-knows-who, to have God-knows-what done with it. Delete the photo, don't be that one arse who gets up on a soapbox and insists on his right to take photos in a public place. You're not HCB and you're not going to win a Pulitzer with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
jabby posted:I've heard this argument a few times, but no-one has ever adequately explained what kind of 'who-knows-what' someone could do with a photograph of you. A picture taken in public rather than one taken privately, obviously. The specific example I was thinking of is that I know someone who has a court order that prohibits anyone from taking photographs or video of them without their consent. This is to protect them from being found by a murderously abusive partner. Lots of people have abusive exes who could and would use a photo of them in a particular place at a particular time as a starting point for tracking them down.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:What about genuinely insightful and neat looking projects like this? I was speaking in the context of an amateur street photographer, which is why I put that rider on the end. If you're HCB or Eddie Adams, sure, stand on your rights and let others decide later whether you were justified.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
I'm absolutely amazed that there are people in here who are seriously making the argument that because Corbyn didn't explicitly say "I will not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances", this somehow preserves a haze of uncertainty around the situation that might be useful for the purposes of MAD. This is the most unconvincing argument I can possibly think of and you all look like a bunch of twerps who can't see your own hand in front of your face. It's Jeremy Corbyn we're talking about here. It's patently obvious that the only reason he doesn't openly say "won't do it" is because it's politically unviable. He joined CND in 1966 and was a vice-chair before all this leadership nonsense started. If anyone's intelligence assessment of his position doesn't consist of some variation on "He is a lifelong unilateralist who would disarm unilaterally if he thought it was politically viable, and will never authorise the use of Britain's nuclear weapons under any forseeable circumstances", then the officer who wrote it should be sacked and so should anyone who ever hired or promoted them, because they're clearly a complete buffoon. If I were planning a nuclear attack on a Corbyn-led UK, I wouldn't be worrying about whether he might press the button after all; I'd be worrying about the possibility that my first strike would take him out, or otherwise cause him to be replaced by someone who would press the button, or that the submarine commander would find a way to retaliate on his own initative.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:in just the last year or two we've seen examples of them spying on elected politicians and infiltrating left wing progressive political groups among other equal heinous poo poo. Incidentally, guess who it's been confirmed was spied on for many years? That's right! The OB in general haven't been a fan for many years on general principle first, and then specifically because he stood up for Bernie Grant when the tabloids were putting the boot in after Broadwater Farm. (If Grant hadn't died and was still in parliament he'd probably be Shadow Home Secretary now, if for no other reason than to annoy MI5, and it makes me deeply sad that this didn't get a chance to happen.) He may be calling for more police numbers, but were he to be elected you can be quite certain that he'd initiate a major public inquiry into Orgreave and a much stronger line taken on police misconduct.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Out of interest, does Corbyn support PR? He's in favour of the idea of a more proportional voting system, but he also really really really likes that everyone is an elected representative with a link to a constituency and who is directly representing a specific and identifiable group of voters, and doesn't want to lose that; deeply unsurprising when you consider that he has a bulletproof personal majority in large part because he's directly helped a shitload of people via his surgeries over the last 30 years, and people remember that. Somewhere out there there's a video of him telling a leadership hustings about a trip to the Netherlands where he met MPs who were elected via a national party list and spent all their time on party business; they had absolutely no reason to ever have contact with, or directly help out, ordinary people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
PIGS BREXIT posted:Sure is great to be directly represented by someone I didn't vote for and who wants the opposite of what I want Interesting thing - if you look for them, and you do have to make an effort to find them, there are actually plenty of stories of e.g. lifelong Labour voters in a safe Tory seat (and vice versa) with a conscientious backbencher, who've discovered that when they've had personal problems, their Tory MP has taken up their case and really gone to bat for them and got their problem sorted out, and never shown any interest in their personal political views either. There's a lot of hard-working backbench MPs out there who do much more for ordinary people than just showing up to Parliament and walking through the lobby as directed by the whips, because they know it's got by far the best chance of anything they do when it comes to securing someone's vote.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
You're allowed a brief description rather than just the party name; at recent elections, red candidates have been described and announced as "The Labour Party Candidate".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:in the extremely unlikely event Corbyn is prime minister in two days can we change the thread title to You Jammy Bastard The one thing that almost certainly won't happen regardless of circumstances is for Corbyn to become prime minister on the 9th; if there's a hung parliament there will first be negotiations of some sort and I wouldn't expect a result on those until the following Monday at the earliest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
This is going to be very odd, I've never been to vote a general election before without thinking a regretful "gently caress you, Labour Party, this vote is for Jeremy Corbyn to continue being a pain in your arse" as I let the ballot paper go. This one's for everyone who wants to vote for him and can't, I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
loving hell, if that exit poll comes off precisely, then they're all scurrying off to make deals with Northern Ireland
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Is anyone out there doing an exit poll for Northern Ireland because this is now suddenly relevant
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Curtice on the BBC now
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
wocobob posted:Could someone give a quick primer on the "Sinn Fein taking seats" thing to the Americans in the thread? I get the impression they're an Irish party, but I don't know much else about them. Do they have seats in parliament that they don't occupy out of protest or something? Sinn Fein believes that Northern Ireland should be united with the Republic, so they refuse to occupy seats in the UK parliament because they don't think it should be their parliament.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
That Swindon result is very, very promising for Team Jam. This is going to be the election night that in future, we compare all the others to. "Was it as exciting/interesting/unpredictable/bizarre as 2017?"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Ken Clarke gleefully putting the boot into Theresa May 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
That Nuneaton result is potentially good news for Labour again; it looks like they've taken half the UKIP vote and brought a few more people out to vote for Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto. Mood improving cautiously.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Another good solid result from Darlo; there's about 4500 UKIP voters gone somewhere, and the Labour majority increases by 100.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Excellent result in Wrexham where 5,000 UKIP voters haven't mattered one gently caress to the result; Labour's majority has increased by precisely one vote from 1,831 to 1,832 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
That South Swindon result is even better than North for Labour; cutting a Tory majority of 5,700 in half despite 4,500 UKIP voters being up for grabs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Last week I wrote a big post about how the route to a Labour government was going to be through Tory seats with a majority of about 4,000 and a UKIP vote larger than the majority that was going to be well and truly up for grabs. About ten minutes ago Laura Kuenssberg said that she's heard that Labour people in Pudsey (maj 4051, UKIP 4600) and Broxtowe (maj 4287, UKIP 5674) think they might have taken them. This is very, very, very good news, yo.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
BigRed0427 posted:Just popping in. I understand that Labor has some reason to celebrate? at the very least denying the Conservatives a majority? Not enough results in yet to tell, but certainly there are many more good signs than bad ones.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
And that one from Vale of Clwyd is also nicely optimistic for Labour.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Good reassuring result from Hartlepool; 11,000 UKIP voters up for grabs and Labour more than doubles the majority in holding the seat. That's the kind of seat the Tories would have needed to take to get their huge majority and it didn't happen.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
gently caress off Clegg and don't come back you lying toad
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Two more good wins for Labour in the Tory midfield at Ipswich and at Strood, two seats with comfortable Tory majorities but a big UKIP vote that's evaporated. Those are the seats they need!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
PS: Just reminding everyone that the BBC pointed out earlier that Ben Gummer, who just got dumped out of Ipswich, was primarily responsible for overseeing the production of the Tory manifesto...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Anyone want to rewind the BBC and see who thought they were taking Peterborough on the audio bleed-through?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
EVIL CORBYN SHAKES HANDS WITH COMMUNIST LEAGUE CANDIDATE 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
Nyahahahaha Douglas Carswell just lost Clacton to the Tory
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Hey Pissflaps, was that Middlesbrough South I just saw going blue?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
jabby posted:Hopefully these youth voters inspired by Corbyn will now form the base of Labour support in the future. This is potentially a serious opportunity for generations to come; turn students into solid Labour voters in university towns, then disperse them throughout the rest of the country after they graduate...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Labour failing to gain Broxtowe isn't so good, they were talking optimistically about it earlier along with Pudsey and those are some of the seats they need to get into to be in position to form a minority government.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Any big toss-up seats still to come? Or are we just waiting for rest of London /rural to go red/blue. Also what happened to Rudd Some more seats to keep an eye on, unless I missed them in the shuffle: Enfield Southgate, Hendon, Telford, Stevenage, Blackpool North & Cleveleys, Lewes, Pudsey, City of Chester, and quite a few more besides
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Anyone else seen the following come in? I'd look for them myself but I'm on a frequently-crashing tablet browser and every time I look away to find something I missed earlier, I miss another one I've been looking for... Brighton Kemptown, Weaver Vale, Calder Valley, Sherwood, Waveney, Heywood & Middleton, Rother Valley, Rotherham, Mansfield
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
JBP posted:I am going to assume this is a place with a lot of racist poor/old people? It's the kind of seat that had the Tories wanking off over their 100-seat majority; trad Labour seat with a large UKIP vote up for grabs, and it's gone heavily Tory.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Labour now fast beginning to run out of midfield Tory seats to take. Looks like the exit poll's going to be drat near bang on. loving PLP bastards, Chuka Umunna can gently caress the gently caress off my loving screen.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Let's not celebrate too hard, yo, even if we get a couple more big wins like Kensington/Sherwood/Blackpool North & Cleveleys this is still looking like the Tories sneak back into government on the DUP's shoulders. Bet on another election within 12 months and a possible big swing back to UKIP as the Brexit negotiations get buggered ten ways from Sunday.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 05:00
|
|