Don't vote Tory

[Bogotazo]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The vote on 9th June is a poll. I guess you'll say a Jezza loss is really victory, cos polls are for chumps...?

Meanwhile... the final polls for the EUref had leave ahead, Hillary won the popular vote by a big margin, and Ed's polls were always borderline but overestimated the labour support and didn't under-estimate it (a very common theme with UK polls).

Nope, the final EU polls had remain winning and the popular vote means nothing, the polls had Hillary winning easily no matter the popular vote. The polls weren't taken as a popular vote.

Good point on Labour always being overestimated though. Though this time I can see that being the other way around. A problem with polls is people not wanting to admit what they're going to do. Last time people would never want to admit they're voting tory, this time round I can see a lot more stigma around voting labour than there has been before. A lot more "you're going to vote corbyn? but he loves the IRA" type stuff. 

The point was that people rely too much on polls. They see the polls going one way and they decide that must be how the election will go. This effects how people go to the booths and whether or not they even turn up. Pre election polls aren't worth a carrot, and as you said the only poll that matters is the one on June 9th.

[DeanoL]

6 minutes ago, FrancisH said:

True, but the trouble is when polls are wrong they tend to be wrong to the right and not to the left.
 

But pollsters aren't dim. After two elections of getting it wrong by underestimating the vote on the right, I somehow doubt they've got "how odd, let's continue to do that". They'll have corrected for that problem. It's possible they've corrected just enough and the polls are now accurate. It's possible they corrected too much and Labour are actually doing better than it looks. It's possible they've corrected too little and Labour are actually further behind than we think.

[eFestivals]

Just now, DeanoL said:

Sorry to steal your line but: PMSL!

You think May will be able to keep all her Brexit promises? Mate, if I believed that I might even vote Tory!

What promises has she made? Almost none, other than we're leaving everything to reform a different relationship on a different basis. She's making clear that new basis might turn out as no basis, too.

She's making few promises because she knows they'd be promises she might be able to keep - and if promises aren't kept they lead to a reaction against the person who made the false promises.

I'm waiting for my world on a stick delivered by Jeremy on 9th June. How do think he'll do with that?

[DeanoL]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

She's making few promises because she knows they'd be promises she might be able to keep - and if promises aren't kept they lead to a reaction against the person who made the false promises.

Which is why Theresa May is currently being hammered in the polls because she called a general election after promising she wouldn't call a general election? 

Quote

I'm waiting for my world on a stick delivered by Jeremy on 9th June. How do think he'll do with that?

Won't happen either. That's my point: every politician over-promises and under-delivers. Because being realistic doesn't win elections.

[eFestivals]

 

6 minutes ago, Bogotazo said:

Pre election polls aren't worth a carrot

that's true in so far as they're not the poll that really counts.

But they're still the only indicator there is, and history shows them as ball-park right and not the 10%+ wrong they'd need to be for a Corbyn victory.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Which is why Theresa May is currently being hammered in the polls because she called a general election after promising she wouldn't call a general election? 

She's not being hammered for calling an election.

She's losing an amount of support from the oldies that majority-support the tories who object to the possibility of their privileges being cut - but even most of those recognise the need of their privileges being cut even if they object to the effect on them personally.

 

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

Won't happen either. That's my point: every politician over-promises and under-delivers. Because being realistic doesn't win elections.

the ones who over-promise don't get re-elected.

[Spindles]

You can't accuse the Tories of over promising this time.  It seems that their manifesto was based on the idea that they couldn't possibly lose and would be guaranteed a larger majority so just went for what was ideologically their core position and offered to give very little and take a lot.

I don't think they considered that a gamble, I don't think it is one that is paying off.  I'd be interested to see how opinion shifts over the next couple of weeks.

[Bogotazo]

Just now, eFestivals said:

 

that's true in so far as they're not the poll that really counts.

But they're still the only indicator there is, and history shows them as ball-park right and not the 10%+ wrong they'd need to be for a Corbyn victory.

Agreed it's still the best indicator we have available but that doesn't make it particularly good. Granted, they would have to be massively out for Corbyn to win but it's not impossible. He's already projected to get more of the vote than Ed actually got 

I'm not going to let it sway my vote and I definitely won't vote based on who the media decides is "electable" or "unelectable".

CBA to scroll but just out of interest who are you voting for? (no judging)

[arcade fireman]

17 minutes ago, Bogotazo said:

Nope, the final EU polls had remain winning and the popular vote means nothing, the polls had Hillary winning easily no matter the popular vote. The polls weren't taken as a popular vote.

Good point on Labour always being overestimated though. Though this time I can see that being the other way around. A problem with polls is people not wanting to admit what they're going to do. Last time people would never want to admit they're voting tory, this time round I can see a lot more stigma around voting labour than there has been before. A lot more "you're going to vote corbyn? but he loves the IRA" type stuff. 

The point was that people rely too much on polls. They see the polls going one way and they decide that must be how the election will go. This effects how people go to the booths and whether or not they even turn up. Pre election polls aren't worth a carrot, and as you said the only poll that matters is the one on June 9th.

Polls were correct by the final % by 3% each way even in the contests you described. They're not perfect - particularly in close contests - but they are still a very good guide. They predicted the French election pretty well - especially the first round which had four main contenders and was quite a close race - the polls got it almost spot on. In the US election the polls were measuring popular vote (which they got pretty right) not electoral college votes. 

9 points out in the polls means Labour are almost certain to lose quite badly unless something else big moves the polls. The "dementia tax" announcement was certainly something big which has moved them, but it'll need a few other things and I suspect there's just a critical mass of people who simply won't vote Labour at this election no matter what. 

[DeanoL]

Just now, eFestivals said:

She's not being hammered for calling an election.

Exactly! She promised: no election. She delivered: an election. By your logic, that means she won't get re-elected?

The manifesto makes promises on immigration that just won't be kept - and yes, the language doesn't quite tie down a timeline but as you say, it's perception not the precise wording that matters. The perception is May will deliver a Brexit that significantly reduces immigration levels and that won't happen.

Various economic claims are also made including a guarantee that we won't leave the customs union, which frankly I don't see her being able to keep - it's 50/50 at best.

Hell, the only issue in the 2010 election was the economy, in which the Tories said they would clear the deficit by 2015. It's now 2017, not only do we still have a deficit, but May's manifesto says it'll be cleared in, wait for it, 2025! Yet they were re-elected in 2015 with an increased majority and will likely be re-elected again this year.

I can't think of any clearer example of over-promising and under-delivering and it not really mattering. Why? Because this election is about Brexit and not the economy so no-one is paying attention.

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, Bogotazo said:

Agreed it's still the best indicator we have available but that doesn't make it particularly good.

it's still better than dismissing them off-hand as wrong. History shows they're not.

It would re-write history if they were wrong this time.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, Bogotazo said:

I'm not going to let it sway my vote and I definitely won't vote based on who the media decides is "electable" or "unelectable".

if you think it works differently for anyone else, you're putting yourself on the "I'm special" pedestal.

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, Bogotazo said:

CBA to scroll but just out of interest who are you voting for? (no judging)

I'm voting Labour if I'm sure it won't be taken as an endorsement for Corbyn or i'm spoiling my paper.

I have spoiling as a safe option in my particular constituency, so it wouldn't necessarily be that if i lived somewhere else.

[clarkete]

47 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

May is.

Including few costings and an immigration figure that they wouldn't stand by even as they did the publicity ("an aim not a target") is that what counts as being up front? 

She stands by f all, but the electorate let her and are grateful too 

[mjsell]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'm voting Labour if I'm sure it won't be taken as an endorsement for Corbyn or i'm spoiling my paper.

I have spoiling as a safe option in my particular constituency, so it wouldn't necessarily be that if i lived somewhere else.

I'm genuinely undecided for this election so far. But I am the opposite of you in regards to your safe option, my vote counts for little and that fact sometimes affects my decision more than I relalise.

 

[eFestivals]

 

8 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Exactly! She promised: no election. She delivered: an election. By your logic, that means she won't get re-elected?

No. She didn't get elected on a promise of no election (and I hope no one ever does ).

As for those who are condemning her for that election, that would only be the ones who want the tories in power - or many Corbynites, who are often the same thing. 

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The manifesto makes promises on immigration that just won't be kept

it makes no promise on 'when', meaning there is no promise to keep.

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The perception is May will deliver a Brexit that significantly reduces immigration levels and that won't happen.

that's only the case with those who are making it up for themselves - a problem that exists within the supporters of any party.

11 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Various economic claims are also made including a guarantee that we won't leave the customs union, which frankly I don't see her being able to keep - it's 50/50 at best.

I think you should find other sources of info. There's no such claim.

There is an expressed desire for a new free trade deal with the EU - which is something different to what you claim - but it's also couched within "no deal is better than a bad deal", making clear there's no guarantee of that new deal.

14 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Hell, the only issue in the 2010 election was the economy, in which the Tories said they would clear the deficit by 2015. It's now 2017, not only do we still have a deficit, but May's manifesto says it'll be cleared in, wait for it, 2025! Yet they were re-elected in 2015 with an increased majority and will likely be re-elected again this year.

and you object to lower cuts in public services and slower deficit reduction because....?

And i'll point out that Jezza says he'll clear it by 2020. Care to tell me where the bigger cuts than the tories will fall to achieve that?

16 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I can't think of any clearer example of over-promising and under-delivering and it not really mattering.

OMFG.  It's one thing to point out it's not been achieved, but does reality factor into your thinking, at all?

The public won't hang her for that. They'd have hung her if Cameron/her had made the cuts necessary to achieve that promise, because if you think the cuts we have had have made you scream, just think about how much much bigger cuts would have made you scream much much more.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Including few costings and an immigration figure that they wouldn't stand by even as they did the publicity ("an aim not a target") is that what counts as being up front? 

She stands by f all, but the electorate let her and are grateful too 

because? Having that aim is more to the electorate's liking than not having anything of that aim.

As i said above, there's things worse than the tories - and on this particular issue, the Corbyn angle is much much worse than the tories for the majority of people.

[zahidf]

'STRONG AND STABLE'

 

 

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, zahidf said:

'STRONG AND STABLE'

and still winning.

Why doesn't anyone want to wonder why?

[arcade fireman]

Next week or so will be interesting. Tories still have this stitched up I think, I can't see how the numbers will change sufficiently for us to have anything other than an increased Tory majority. 

But whether the polls widen again to 13-15%, whether they stay the same or whether they narrow a little more to 6-7% will potentially have massive implications for what comes next. Releasing the manifesto can cause a big change in the polls but often things revert back to the mean a little after the initial reaction.

Barring any unexpected shocks, the polls this time next week will be quite similar to what we will end up with in terms of vote % I would guess - though they can vary themselves between companies.

Edited May 22, 2017 by arcade fireman

[stuartbert two hats]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

because taxing people who need their money is a better idea than taxing those who don't....?

The problem isn't 'the dementia tax' it's that all inheritance isn't taxed to fuck.

I agree on this one.  I can see why the "dementia tax" is unpopular, especially with the Conservative core vote, but I don't really have a massive problem with it, if we're going to accept that substantial increases in inheritance tax is politically unfeasible.

These kids of the rich have no right to their parents' money, it's just an accident of birth.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

These kids of the rich have no right to their parents' money, it's just an accident of birth.

the kids of the poorer types too.

Unearned and undeserved income is the same thing whether it's £100k or £100M.

[mikegday]

I'm livid over this. The conservatives have announced (from what little knowledge I have) what appears to be their most socialist policy to date. Genuinely funding social care for everyone rich/poor, by removing any wealth above £100k from a deceased persons estate. Labour attack it, purely because of politics. This should be a labour policy, instead they're going to scare TM into a u-turn.

People are so selfish, everyone wants everything, but not at any cost to them personally. Things have to change, both parties have a responsibility for educating the electorate the more we give, the more we get. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by mikegday

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, eFestivals said:

the kids of the poorer types too.

Unearned and undeserved income is the same thing whether it's £100k or £100M.

Agreed.  

[maelzoid]

14 minutes ago, mikegday said:

I'm livid over this. The conservatives have announced (from what little knowledge I have) what appears to be their most socialist policy to date. Genuinely funding social care for everyone rich/poor, by removing any wealth above £100k from a deceased persons estate. Labour attack it, purely because of politics. This should be a labour policy, instead they're going to scare TM into a u-turn.

People are so selfish, everyone wants everything, but not at any cost to them personally. Things have to change, both parties have a responsibility for educating the electorate the more we give, the more we get. 

But that's not what they're doing. They're only removing the wealth above £100k for those that need care, essentially penalising those that end up that situation. This is not socialism at all, but rather a swing towards the US style of paying for your own healthcare.  True socialism would be taxing everyone with wealth over this threshold, whether they need the care  or not.