Politics

[Rayvin 4964]

I see the Electoral Calculus site's amalgamation of polls for the last month or so has the Tories looking at a whacking 130 seat majority were an election to be called now. Part of me thinks it would be better to get it out of the way rather than have a similar or worse result in a few years time. So much for the establishment getting kicked up the arse post-Brexit.

 

I think it's a longer game than the election. People will stick with the Tories because they consider them to be the only competent party left - all it's going to take is for Brexit to end up in farce or the slightly more medium term collapse of the standards of living in this country for a similar phenomenon to what just happened in the US to happen here.

 

I genuinely think Brexit relieved some of the pressure on the establishment over here, we might well have averted something worse. All it does is buy time though, and the Tories are unlikely to use that to make the system work better for people. I just hope Labour are ready when the time to be the 'anti-establishment' party comes, and haven't reverted to form.

[Dr Gloom 19828]

I see the Electoral Calculus site's amalgamation of polls for the last month or so has the Tories looking at a whacking 130 seat majority were an election to be called now. Part of me thinks it would be better to get it out of the way rather than have a similar or worse result in a few years time. So much for the establishment getting kicked up the arse post-Brexit.

 

doesn't seem the time to be trusting pollsters. if 2016 has taught us anything, it's don't bet against corbyn winning the next GE - can't be any more ridiculous than trump in the white house, can it? 

[Rayvin 4964]

doesn't seem the time to be trusting pollsters. if 2016 has taught us anything, it's don't bet against corbyn winning the next GE - can't be any more ridiculous than trump in the white house, can it? 

 

Corbyn won't be carrying the working class though. He needs more time to mend the damage done to that group by New Labour. If indeed he's capable of it at all.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Rayvin

[Alex 30440]

doesn't seem the time to be trusting pollsters. if 2016 has taught us anything, it's don't bet against corbyn winning the next GE - can't be any more ridiculous than trump in the white house, can it? 

I get what you're saying but (and I'm by no means a statistician) you're talking about margins of error within those normally permitted in the case of Brexit and Trump. The margins of error required for the Tories not to romp home were an election to happen now (which obviously couldn't happen but you'll take my point) would have to be huge. They're approaching a 20-point lead over Labour. Given Scotland is gone for the forseeable then I'm not sure what the Tories are waiting for. The 'mandate' excuse given what's happened is perfectly valid too.

[Dr Gloom 19828]

@@Rayvin i was joking. i don't think he has a chance, but i didn't think trump did either. and a corbyn victory is only slightly less absurd than a trump presidency so who knows? 

Edited November 15, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Alex 30440]

Corbyn won't be carrying the working class though. He needs more time to mend the damage done to that group by New Labour. If indeed he's capable of it at all.

He'll never carry the working class, man. It's about more than the message.

[Rayvin 4964]

He'll never carry the working class, man. It's about more than the message.

Can you expand on that? I'm interested in what else you think comes into play.

[Rayvin 4964]

I get what you're saying but (and I'm by no means a statistician) you're talking about margins of error within those normally permitted in the case of Brexit and Trump. The margins of error required for the Tories not to romp home were an election to happen now (which obviously couldn't happen but you'll take my point) would have to be huge. They're approaching a 20-point lead over Labour. Given Scotland is gone for the forseeable then I'm not sure what the Tories are waiting for. The 'mandate' excuse given what's happened is perfectly valid too.

Trump was given a 15% chance of winning. Those polls were very, very wrong.

[Happy Face 29]

@@Rayvin i was joking. i don't think he has a chance, but i didn't think trump did either. and a corbyn victory is only slightly less absurd than a trump presidency so who knows? 

 

I liked the 538 defence of their polls and the perception people had of how absurd a Trump win would be.  Everyone is slamming them, but what they said was that Trump has a one third chance of winning it.  if you were rolling a dice it's the same chance of rolling a 1 or a 2.  Which people would be much more worried about if the had £10k on the outcome than they seemed to be about a Trump win.

 

People saw a 66% chance for Clinton and took it that this meant the polls said Clinton would win.  

[Happy Face 29]

Trump was given a 15% chance of winning. Those polls were very, very wrong.

 

That was 2 weeks before the election.  On election day the polls had closed.

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

 

that's 538s model which is a poll of polls though, they gave Trump a better chance than anyone and you're right about how low some polls went.  Nate Silver explains here...

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/

[Alex 30440]

Can you expand on that? I'm interested in what else you think comes into play.

It's about the bloke himself, he's completely inconvincing in his ability to deliver his message to anyone beyond his hardcore support. Rightly or wrongly.

[Renton 17811]

I get what you're saying but (and I'm by no means a statistician) you're talking about margins of error within those normally permitted in the case of Brexit and Trump. The margins of error required for the Tories not to romp home were an election to happen now (which obviously couldn't happen but you'll take my point) would have to be huge. They're approaching a 20-point lead over Labour. Given Scotland is gone for the forseeable then I'm not sure what the Tories are waiting for. The 'mandate' excuse given what's happened is perfectly valid too.

If it stays like this by Easter, they could call labour's bluff by calling an election (which would require parliamentary consent) and use this as a mandate for article 50 being triggered. Labour would have to consent to it. Both main parties will run on a Brexit platform and Corbyns labour will be utterly annihilated imo.

 

It's so depressing I don't want to think about it.

[Dr Gloom 19828]

I liked the 538 defence of their polls and the perception people had of how absurd a Trump win would be.  Everyone is slamming them, but what they said was that Trump has a one third chance of winning it.  if you were rolling a dice it's the same chance of rolling a 1 or a 2.  Which people would be much more worried about if the had £10k on the outcome than they seemed to be about a Trump win.

 

People saw a 66% chance for Clinton and took it that this meant the polls said Clinton would win.  

 

it's the first time ever, i think, that the candidate who spent less money campaigning won. all the odds were against him. parky was the only one on here who called it, if i remember correctly, but he's a freak. 

[Alex 30440]

If it stays like this by Easter, they could call labour's bluff by calling an election (which would require parliamentary consent) and use this as a mandate for article 50 being triggered. Labour would have to consent to it. Both main parties will run on a Brexit platform and Corbyns labour will be utterly annihilated imo.

 

It's so depressing I don't want to think about it.

Aye, that's pretty much how I see it panning out. Great

[Alex 30440]

Trump was given a 15% chance of winning. Those polls were very, very wrong.

They weren't that far out though. It's not like they called the popular vote wrong by much. The polls could be 10% out and the Tories would still win at an absolute canter. It's not like 15% were saying they'd vote for Trump. I think it only required a small shift away from the predicted votes (which themselves fluctated a few % from day to day) in a few key states for the result to happen like it did. The trend with polls in the UK has seen Labour trailing badly for a good while now and, as previously mentioned, the current leads for the Tories in the polls are about as big as it gets in the UK. I think relying on the polls being wrong are a very vain hope.

 

Can you imagine what the fuckers would be like if they had something in the region of 390 seats?

[Happy Face 29]

it's the first time ever, i think, that the candidate who spent less money campaigning won. all the odds were against him. parky was the only one on here who called it, if i remember correctly, but he's a freak. 

 

It's an interesting dichotomy between the democrats who want to reform campaign finance and Republicans who don't.  Clinton raised twice as much as Trump and her super PACs almost 4 times as much as Trump's. So why do they line up that way?

 

Obama spent more on both of his campaigns too, although Romney raised more from PAC's in 2012.

 

If it's going to be the case that Democratic PAC's outstrip Republican, I guess we'll see the Republican support for Citizens United dry up and Democrats defending it more.

[Rayvin 4964]

it's the first time ever, i think, that the candidate who spent less money campaigning won. all the odds were against him. parky was the only one on here who called it, if i remember correctly, but he's a freak. 

 

Even Parky was hedging his bets towards the end.

[Rayvin 4964]

If it stays like this by Easter, they could call labour's bluff by calling an election (which would require parliamentary consent) and use this as a mandate for article 50 being triggered. Labour would have to consent to it. Both main parties will run on a Brexit platform and Corbyns labour will be utterly annihilated imo.

 

It's so depressing I don't want to think about it.

 

Brexit complicated the whole matter. Prior to it, I genuinely hoped that Corbyn could pick up the anti-establishment vote - unfortunately it's been captured by the right. The only thing in our favour is that the Tories don't fully appreciate that they've pulled the pin on a hand grenade, and it could still all go quite a way south for them.

[Dr Gloom 19828]

apparently i'm part of the metropolitan liberal elite, but then - who doesn't love an avocado-based sunday brunch? 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/are-you-a-member-of-the-elite---hatred-of-which-apparently-fuele/

[ewerk 26415]

Me too. 

[Alex 30440]

2 out of the first 3 questions had no choices which applied to me. How elitist

[Rayvin 4964]

This is the best one I've seen for measuring your social class:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973

[ewerk 26415]

This is the best one I've seen for measuring your social class:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973

 

Established middle class.

[Dr Gloom 19828]

This is the best one I've seen for measuring your social class:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22000973

 

i got elite, which is strange as i hardly do, or did, any of these things

• Enjoy high cultural activities such as visiting museums and listening to classical music
• Went to private school and elite universities
• Socialise with people who do a wide variety of jobs

[Rayvin 4964]

Me too. You and I weren't born into it though we dragged ourselves up.

 

Although 1 and 3 from that list are true for me. If Durham / Leeds counts as elite unis then maybe 2 as well Leeds isn't, not sure about Durham these days.

Edited November 15, 2016 by Rayvin