Don't vote Tory

[5co77ie]

12 minutes ago, FatAmmy said:

Those polls are all over the place - I can't imagine drawing many concrete conclusions from them

This site (where the graphic above comes from) pretty much called the last election, see their archive on the right.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/

It suggests they aren't all over the place.

Quote

Two new lots of polling data out so far today reflecting the two sides of the polling divide that characterises GE2017.

The latest ICM, with its post-GE2015 turnout model has CON with a 11% lead which would see TMay meet her goal of having an increased majority. The YouGov model continues to have the lead at just 4% and seat projections suggesting that the Tories will be 20 seats short of a majority with almost exactly the same total as David Cameron achieved in 2010.

Got to feel sorry for pollsters. If their numbers are close together they’re accused of herding – if not they’re said to be “all over the place

Meanwhile a fierce debate goes on over which has got this right. Punters, however, are not phased by the polls showing a declining CON lead and continue to risk their money on a substantial CON majority.

Latest CON seats spreads SportingIndex 368-374 Spreadex 364-370

Latest LAB spreads SportingIndex 196-202 and Spreadex 198-204

Latest LD spreads SportingIndex 11-13 and Spreadex 11-13.5

Expect more polling in the next few hours.

Me – I’m not changing my big betting position that the Tories will below 393 seats.

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by 5co77ie

[FatAmmy]

1 minute ago, 5co77ie said:

This site (where the graphic above comes from) pretty much called the last election, see their archive on the right.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/

It suggests they aren't all over the place.

 

 

That link is just suggesting, to me, that people are choosing not to believe the polls showing a smaller lead

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

YouGov (the largest sample) has for the last fortnight put the gap at 4% that's not enough for a majority - we face a coalition of chaos - well we would if Faron wasn't likely to actually jump in bed with May again.

Yougov says every youngster who says they'll vote will vote.

Good luck with that.

[Mr.Tease]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Pretence? You're the one that said with a more electable leader we might be about to be having a Labour government. Pure nonsense, as with one we wouldn't be having an election right now. The only way we ever had any shot at a Labour government right now is having someone look like they were so awful the government felt safe calling an election three years, and then being so good as to turn that around within a month of campaigning. Corbyn's given it a hell of a go and I can't think of anyone who could have done a better job in these particular circumstances, but like I say, by all means explain your fantasy scenario about how we could have a Labour government next week.

The eventual "success" of Corbyn will be hard to judge because it won't be apparent until 2020 unless May is returned with a significantly larger majority. He's potentially given them two more years. He's potentially given them a larger majority. He's also potentially cut that majority.

I agree, it's going to be very difficult to fathom what to learn from all this- such an unusual set of circumstances too, unprecedented.

I think it does show there is slightly more scope for slightly more left wing policies than was feared after Ed's loss.

I'm curious to see if the mass membership leads to better turnout, especially with young voters. Problems with credibility remain. Labour Party election machinery & HQ is vastly improved from 2015.

However, brexit, party realignment after UKIP and lib Dems collapse, tories annoying their core voters, two terrorist attacks, snap election after 2 years- there are so many unique things which will make it tricky to draw conclusions we can use going forward. 

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

This site (where the graphic above comes from) pretty much called the last election, see their archive on the right.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/

It suggests they aren't all over the place.

that's fuck all to do with voting intentions and everything to do with bookies making a profit.

[5co77ie]

1 minute ago, FatAmmy said:

That link is just suggesting, to me, that people are choosing not to believe the polls showing a smaller lead

yes, sorry I meant to add the quote but fucked it up. See above.  They suggest it's not all over the place but without a partnership May will not be able to have a majority to form government.

 

Hence my coalition of chaos - politics is still just a broken as it was in 2010

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Yougov says every youngster who says they'll vote will vote.

Good luck with that.

If they don't, no one will bother targeting them in the election again! I hope they make a stand. Labour's hope lie on that and secretly miffed tories who won't vote for the dementia tax (polls showing no signs of this happening) 

[5co77ie]

Just now, eFestivals said:

that's fuck all to do with voting intentions and everything to do with bookies making a profit.

it says based on polls of voting intetentions that we'll have a hung parliament - i think that's exactly what'll happen.

 

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

yes, sorry I meant to add the quote but fucked it up. See above.  They suggest it's not all over the place but without a partnership May will not be able to have a majority to form government.

 

Hence my coalition of chaos - politics is still just a broken as it was in 2010

I don't get why no one asked May who she'd go into a coalition with- just Labour get asked that and then end up having to rule it out. 

[5co77ie]

Bookies are rarely wrong

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Pretence? You're the one that said with a more electable leader we might be about to be having a Labour government. Pure nonsense, as with one we wouldn't be having an election right now.

Oh, where to start.

It's at least good to see that you admit Corbyn has been so crap and weak he's caused an election. It's a shame that crap and weak doesn't get factored in to other thinking.

As for no election without Corbyn, that's merely your presumption. It might be true it might not be.

But ... it's certainly true that it's not Labour who would be causing May difficulties in getting brexit stuff thru parliament as she has a majority - and so it's clearly the case that it's the tories infighting that are the driving force behind the need for an election, and Corbyn merely made it an easy choice.

(you used to see plenty of 'leftists' saying how the tories would rip themselves apart over brexit. This election is that 'rip apart', but with little ripping).

 

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Corbyn's given it a hell of a go and I can't think of anyone who could have done a better job in these particular circumstances

That only makes sense if there's is no better campaigner in the world than Corbyn. It's clearly a crock of shit.

And if there was a better campaigner than Corbyn we probably wouldn't be having brexit to then be having this election anyway.

 

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

, but like I say, by all means explain your fantasy scenario about how we could have a Labour government next week.

I keep reading here about how May is the worst ever. If that's true anyone else would beat here. Anyone but Corbyn, by the look of things.

(and if it's not true it only shows how moronicly self-serving some Labour supporters are, until the time they're called to account for being moroinic when they'll have to invent a new moronic line).

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

Bookies are rarely wrong

bookies are even more rarely skint.

The odds are based on potential pay-outs, not on the potential likelihood of a particular result.

[stuartbert two hats]

24 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

YouGov (the largest sample) has for the last fortnight put the gap at 4% that's not enough for a majority - we face a coalition of chaos - well we would if Faron wasn't likely to actually jump in bed with May again.

If we're to believe YouGov (CON 205, LIB 13), then they would only have a combined total of 318 seats.  That's 8 short of the total needed for an overall majority.  SNP would hold the balance of power according to their model, not the Lib Dems.

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

sorry I missed this poll of polls poll - where is that?

I just tend to use this:

https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/

 

yougov's polls are at one extremity, and have a methodology which favours Labour the most.

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

If we're to believe YouGov (CON 205, LIB 13), then they would only have a combined total of 318 seats.  That's 8 short of the total needed for an overall majority.  SNP would hold the balance of power according to their model, not the Lib Dems.

you've forgotten NI.

[bigfurbdogg]

11 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

Bookies are rarely wrong

Bookies got Brexit and Trump wrong recently.

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

If they don't, no one will bother targeting them in the election again! I hope they make a stand. Labour's hope lie on that and secretly miffed tories who won't vote for the dementia tax (polls showing no signs of this happening) 

the youth vote may well be up compared to the norm.

Will it be 100% of those who say they'll vote, which yougov is using? Not a fucking chance.

[5co77ie]

But as this isn't based on payouts it's based on where the money is going it's suggesting most of it is being lumped on a conservative win of 360+ seats and a Labour share of around 200 - I think that'll be about right.

 

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, eFestivals said:

you've forgotten NI.

I have.

What is "Northern Ireland" on that list?  What parties are they and how are they likely to vote?  I've just realised I have a big gap in my knowledge over how government works in NI.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, 5co77ie said:

But as this isn't based on payouts it's based on where the money is going

where the money is bet is what causes the odds to be based on the potential payouts.

 

1 minute ago, 5co77ie said:

it's suggesting most of it is being lumped on a conservative win of 360+ seats and a Labour share of around 200 - I think that'll be about right.

then that's not the 'hung parliament' you were saying above.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

I have.

What is "Northern Ireland" on that list?  What parties are they and how are they likely to vote?  I've just realised I have a big gap in my knowledge over how government works in NI.

it's pretty much excluded from polls, and the seats are pretty much the same in every election - cos it's tribal and not policy which decides who gets a vote.

[5co77ie]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

where the money is bet is what causes the odds to be based on the potential payouts.

 

then that's not the 'hung parliament' you were saying above.

No, no it's not is it

 

[stuartbert two hats]

Just now, eFestivals said:

it's pretty much excluded from polls, and the seats are pretty much the same in every election - cos it's tribal and not policy which decides who gets a vote.

So, how would we take it into account if trying to calculate the number of votes needed to secure a vote of confidence and form a minority government?

[5co77ie]

here's what Metro have just published as predictions:

 

http://metro.co.uk/2017/06/05/seat-by-seat-poll-predicts-which-candidate-will-become-your-next-mp-6682123/

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, 5co77ie said:

No, no it's not is it

 

you said...

4 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

a conservative win of 360+ seats and a Labour share of around 200

how's that not a stonking big win for the tories?

That's a bigger win for the tories than they managed against Miliband.