UK General Election 2017 Megathread

[-:Undertaker:-]

Polling is broadly accurate: correct (within MoE) in 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010, Scottish referendum, EU referendum. If polling was as useless as its detractors claim, that we can't tell opinions of 70m on sample 1,000: then the polling industry wouldn't exist, political parties wouldn't base their strategies around them, academics and studies wouldn't cite them, huge amounts of money wouldn't be placed on them and we'd all be wondering whether Tim Farron was heading for Number 10 in two weeks time.

[dbgtz]

Like I said, you need to read up on Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud is appalling to our standards yes, but what stands ready to take over should the royal family ever fall is a million times worse. Saudi Arabia as a country is a coalition/pact.

So no, PM May standing in an official capacity with the legitimate government of a foreign state with whom we depend on in the Middle East isn't same as Jeremy Corbyn as a far-left backbench MP associating with enemies of Britain.

How are the people funding ISIS not enemies of Britain

Where are all these MPs going to come from then for your favoured 3-way coalition?

The SNP is the third largest party with 56 seats. A Hung Parliament may mean you have no choice.

I think you'll find what I actually said was that if there were to be a coalition then it would probably have to be at least 3 parties.

[lemons]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 44% (-2)
LAB: 38% (+4)
LDEM: 7% (-)
UKIP: 5% (-2)

(via @ORB_Int / 24 - 25 May)

— Britain Elects (@BritainElects) May 27, 2017

A new poll JC 6 points behind

On the other hand, this other poll has JC down 2 points!

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 43% (-)
LAB: 36% (-2)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
UKIP: 4% (-)

(via @YouGov / 25 - 26 May)

— Britain Elects (@BritainElects) May 27, 2017

[FlyingJesus]

lol polls still exist despite being WILDLY wrong (margin of error? polls suggested Hillary had an 85% chance of winning, predictions for the 2015 GE were about by about 60 seats before the actual voting, and the lead for "No" in the Scottish referendum was predicted 6% lower and therefore too close to call) because of how financially lucrative they are. No-one at yougov is suddenly gonna go "oh yeah we're wrong all the time about everything, time to call it a day" are they, they're going to claim that they're close enough and come up with a load of nonsense to get the political chaps to keep paying for it all. Mathematically it's even less useful than asking two members of the forum a question and suggesting that everyone agrees with whatever they say.

As you said, it's an industry, and people who run industries (especially ones that get a bootload of government money for doing very little) don't just quit gracefully when they become old and obsolete

[-:Undertaker:-]

Polls are showing Labour improving, but exactly what is driving the Labour rise we're not sure. My feeling is that Labour could be surging in their own seats with loyalists and students motivated, but not elsewhere. And it's the swing seats that matter.

Important to remember though that...

Average Tory lead in tonight's polls: nine points. Not a close election.

— George Eaton (@georgeeaton) May 27, 2017

Labour's problem: Ukip voters are keeping the Tories comfortably above 40%.

— George Eaton (@georgeeaton) May 27, 2017

Tweeted a lot about Labour vote share. But what's also significant is solidity of the Tory vote share. Consistently mid to high 40's.

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) May 27, 2017

Another out just now from ICM.

Interesting to note the death penalty support figures, I have said for a while it'd win a referendum to restore it. If the Conservatives were truly right-wing, they'd add this restoration to their manifesto. Controversial but hugely popular across the country. A winner.

lol polls still exist despite being WILDLY wrong (margin of error? polls suggested Hillary had an 85% chance of winning, predictions for the 2015 GE were about by about 60 seats before the actual voting, and the lead for "No" in the Scottish referendum was predicted 6% lower and therefore too close to call) because of how financially lucrative they are. No-one at yougov is suddenly gonna go "oh yeah we're wrong all the time about everything, time to call it a day" are they, they're going to claim that they're close enough and come up with a load of nonsense to get the political chaps to keep paying for it all. Mathematically it's even less useful than asking two members of the forum a question and suggesting that everyone agrees with whatever they say.

As you said, it's an industry, and people who run industries (especially ones that get a bootload of government money for doing very little) don't just quit gracefully when they become old and obsolete

No polls said that Clinton had a 85% chance of winning, thus proving you have no idea of polling. You're confusing actual polling with newspaper and/or bookies odds which are completely different things. Polling isn't 100% right obviously, and things like unpredictable turnout can skew, but they're a fairly decent method of measuring public opinion.

Every policy and slogan put out by political parties is tested via focus groups and polls. It works.

I think you'll find what I actually said was that if there were to be a coalition then it would probably have to be at least 3 parties.

Given you seemingly want a coalition to happen, do you think it would be good for the country to have Nicola Sturgeon, a woman who wants to break up the country, as Kingmaker? Hand her the ability to bring down HM Government?

Thank God for FPTP.

[hungryfront]

Theresa May keeps going back on her promises. Jeremy Corbyn is a genuine man. Why do people trust her and not him?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[-:Undertaker:-]

Theresa May keeps going back on her promises. Jeremy Corbyn is a genuine man. Why do people trust her and not him?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

The reason being that the British people aren't all too keen on marxism. Most of us like our monarchy, support the right of Gibraltar, the Falklands and Northern Ireland to stay British, abhor Hamas and the IRA and want nuclear weapons to keep our country safe and powerful. He's genuine in that he is quite clear he wants to abolish the monarchy, hand over Ulster and the colonies and associate with terrorist groups. And make us powerless and reliant on the USA by scrapping Trident.

He's genuine alright, which is why older people - who aren't taken in easily - will turn out in droves to stop him.

[FlyingJesus]

No polls said that Clinton had a 85% chance of winning, thus proving you have no idea of polling. You're confusing actual polling with newspaper and/or bookies odds which are completely different things.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...e=sectionfront
"The estimates on this page are based on pre-election polls."
No obviously polls and estimates are not the same thing, but if you can't use polls to make estimates then they're even more useless than I'm claiming them to be

Every policy and slogan put out by political parties is tested via focus groups and polls. It works.

Ok cool story but that has bollock all to do with election intention polling. I didn't say that no poll in any situation is ever a good thing, I said that these polls are pointless and (in recent years) massively wrong

Jeremy Corbyn is a genuine man

Based on what? He's never been in power before so hasn't been able to make or break promises

[hungryfront]

Based on what? He's never been in power before so hasn't been able to make or break promises

He's got the lowest financial claims (forgot what they're called, when you get your employer to pay for your resources) of any MP that's taken them this year, and his policies aren't in the interests of himself. He won't benefit from free tuition or taxing the top 5%, he's doing it to help the nation.

Theresa May would benefit from her policies, however:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7133231.html

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[FlyingJesus]

Article says she's clamping down on tax avoidance (which everyone says but can never do) so can't see the policies that are making her money there. None of them make up policies to help themselves get rich lol they do it to get in power, expenses are an oddity that should be looked into more but it's the fault of the system that they get so high, been a very calculated plan from Corbyn making sure his is low just so he can make a point of it and do his "man of the people" thing