General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

[NinjaFletch]

Those are the self-reported likelihoods to vote, which then get weighted at 1.0 for a 10, 0.9 for a 9 etc. But yeah, whilst I can fully believe that Corb's motivated the youngsters and they'll turn out higher than 2015, very sceptical 18-24 would be as close as that to 65-74s... But, politics has been anything but predictable of late.

Sorry that wasn't clear. I realise that this is people self responding how likely they are to vote, but I was asking as to whether this is the raw data or Suvations estimate at turnout?

There have been a few articles on this topic recently, but the take away is that pollsters are aware both that they reach a more politically motivated audience than the UK average and that people over report.

They then adjust their raw data to attempt to get a representative sample of the UK. If the algorithm is junk, then the poll is junk, but they know they're not getting the full picture from their sample.

 

[Ubik]

Sorry that wasn't clear. I realise that this is people self responding how likely they are to vote, but I was asking as to whether this is the raw data or Suvations estimate at turnout?

There have been a few articles on this topic recently, but the take away is that pollsters are aware both that they reach a more politically motivated audience than the UK average and that people over report.

They then adjust their raw data to attempt to get a representative sample of the UK. If the algorithm is junk, then the poll is junk, but they know they're not getting the full picture from their sample.

As far as I can tell, 92 is the raw figure in terms of responses, which has then been weighted up to 115 to reflect for a more accurate measure of population/registered voters at that age, and those figures are then weighted by 1.0, 0.9 etc. ICM and ComRes have more sophisticated turnout filters I believe, but as you say if those are off then the whole thing is junk. Survation's methodology notes suggest it's purely the self-reporting that they use.

Had also been long confused about the actual 18-24 turnout in the 2016 referendum, initial reports from Sky Data suggested really low in the 30s, later estimates put it closer to the 60s, but I think this may explain a lot of the difference:

 

[Damien]

Front pages: https://twitter.com/i/moments/869313202345172992

The Daily Telegraph: Corbyn ducks terror challenge
The Times: May woos working class with tough line on Brexit
i: May and Corbyn endure bruising TV debate
The Sun: Jez: No vow on migration cut
The Guardian: Corbyn tells Paxman: "I'm no dictator" in TV debate
Daily Express: Oily fish can beat dementia
Metro: Prime Minister's question time: We quiz Theresa May on Brexit, security, immigration, housing, fox hunting, the latest polls... and even dancing to Abba
The Scotsman: Corbyn rules out SNP deal but would 'consider' indyref2
Scottish Daily Mail: Corbyn waves white flag on Union

 

[langster]

Daily Express: Oily fish can beat dementia

 

[Berbasbullet]

How are any of those what happened?! Eurrgh I am never buying a newspaper again.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Sure, if you completely ignore the context of that story I mentioned about why she supposedly allowed her kid to do what they wanted despite it being highly damaging to her own political image

If you also ignore the context as to why it was so damaging to her political image because she had made this an issue when others in her own party had done as she then did, which made her a massive fecking hypocrite. Which she then tried to sidestep by saying its Ok for West Indian women because they are more committed to their kids.

Defend that all you like. I'm happy with my side of this argument and we can go round and round and you will look worse and worse for trying to defend the undefendable.

 

[NinjaFletch]

As far as I can tell, 92 is the raw figure in terms of responses, which has then been weighted up to 115 to reflect for a more accurate measure of population/registered voters at that age, and those figures are then weighted by 1.0, 0.9 etc. ICM and ComRes have more sophisticated turnout filters I believe, but as you say if those are off then the whole thing is junk. Survation's methodology notes suggest it's purely the self-reporting that they use.

Had also been long confused about the actual 18-24 turnout in the 2016 referendum, initial reports from Sky Data suggested really low in the 30s, later estimates put it closer to the 60s, but I think this may explain a lot of the difference:

The issue with the ref is that none of them had any historical data or exit polls to go off of; the Guardian/LSE poll had youth turnout at about 68% so you've got three wildly different numbers for the same event. The only conclusion you can draw is that they don't know and are using different methods to try and work it out.

I'm aware it's the self reporting polling that is giving Labour the highest leads (although I find it hard to believe YouGov and Survation aren't adjusting these for their projections), but then again if Labour's resurgence is based on voters that wouldn't, couldn't or didn't vote in the past then they're not going to show up in other polls who will penalise them based on historic voting patterns.

I think as soon as we're out of landslide territory then there are simply too many variables that people don't know about for them to be reliable: is the shy Tory effect still a thing? will people who say they're voting one way vote tactically on the day? will the young turn out to vote? These things are always true, of course, but the political landscape at the minute seems incredibly disturbed and it is impossible to know whether they've got a good grasp of it. We will see in June I suppose.

 

[Kentonio]

If you also ignore the context as to why it was so damaging to her political image because she had made this an issue when others in her own party had done as she then did, which made her a massive fecking hypocrite. Which she then tried to sidestep by saying its Ok for West Indian women because they are more committed to their kids.

Defend that all you like. I'm happy with my side of this argument and we can go round and round and you will look worse and worse for trying to defend the undefendable.

Her looking hypocritical is obvious, and the entire reason it was a tough decision for her to make in the first place.

If you look at that situation from the point of view of an actual human being though rather than just a political mistake then it makes a lot more sense. The fact she mentioned West Indian mothers was dumb given she's a politician but exactly the kind of comment a million other people could have made and everyone would have immediately realized they weren't making a racial point. With Dianne Abbott though, people like yourself and the Tory press are so keen to slip the knife in that you just ignored the human element entirely and jumped straight to 'Oh look, the black woman is racist!!'.

You're right, it's pointless going round and round on this with you. You either don't understand something very simple, or you're determined to make your Daily Mail point regardless.

 

[Ubik]

The issue with the ref is that none of them had any historical data or exit polls to go off of; the Guardian/LSE poll had youth turnout at about 68% so you've got three wildly different numbers for the same event. The only conclusion you can draw is that they don't know and are using different methods to try and work it out.

I'm aware it's the self reporting polling that is giving Labour the highest leads (although I find it hard to believe YouGov and Survation aren't adjusting these for their projections), but then again if Labour's resurgence is based on voters that wouldn't, couldn't or didn't vote in the past then they're not going to show up in other polls who will penalise them based on historic voting patterns.

I think as soon as we're out of landslide territory then there are simply too many variables that people don't know about for them to be reliable: is the shy Tory effect still a thing? will people who say they're voting one way vote tactically on the day? will the young turn out to vote? These things are always true, of course, but the political landscape at the minute seems incredibly disturbed and it is impossible to know whether they've got a good grasp of it. We will see in June I suppose.

Yeah I have no idea which end of the scale is going to be more reliable at this point, just gonna cop out and assume it's somewhere in the middle.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Her looking hypocritical is obvious, and the entire reason it was a tough decision for her to make in the first place.

If you look at that situation from the point of view of an actual human being though rather than just a political mistake then it makes a lot more sense. The fact she mentioned West Indian mothers was dumb given she's a politician but exactly the kind of comment a million other people could have made and everyone would have immediately realized they weren't making a racial point. With Dianne Abbott though, people like yourself and the Tory press are so keen to slip the knife in that you just ignored the human element entirely and jumped straight to 'Oh look, the black woman is racist!!'.

You're right, it's pointless going round and round on this with you. You either don't understand something very simple, or you're determined to make your Daily Mail point regardless.

I am not an alien, I do look at this as a human being. I would respect a decision to put your kids first because my political views are mine and my kids best interests come first. The issue here is that Abbott didn't distinguish this point until it was her own child. Then rather than admitting she was wrong, she made a stupid racist sexist defence of her change of heart.

Then you and people like you who can't admit the truth, condemn everyone who takes issue with her for being such a hypocritical wanker, and calls them racist.

It is a bit bizarre that, she makes an actual racist comment which you can't bring yourself to admit is racist and your critique of those who point this out is that they are white and therefore racist.

Let's keep this debate going because I' have never had an easier win in any debate in my life than this.

 

[SteveJ]

Vote Oily Fish.

 

[Ubik]

The Tories do seem to be targeting me with ads Got about 5 of theirs and none for Labour so far.

 

[Dobba]

How are any of those what happened?! Eurrgh I am never buying a newspaper again.

You have to run it through the media's "She's promised to ditch Leveson 2" filter. Which also doesn't exist and is a Corbynite conspiracy because media coverage is straight down the middle when it comes to British politics.

 

[Mozza]

Jezza needs a speech where he argues no deal is a bad deal and May is hamstrung by the Tory press / her own party from making any concessions towards a good a Brexit

 

[Kentonio]

Tories pledge to drop Leveson part two investigation into corrupt dealings between press and police

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ation-corrupt-dealings/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_fb

 

[SteveJ]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ation-corrupt-dealings/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_fb

They're not only heartless and incompetent but also corrupt.

 

[11101]

I think you need to dig a bit deeper. Can you tell me, for instance, why internment was such a roadblock on the way to a negotiated settlement?

I have no idea why the internment of the Palestinians who bombed the Israeli embassy was a roadblock to the Irish peace process, because Corbyn was protesting that too.

I also don't know why he was against the peace negotiations going on at the same time he was campaigning for the release of convicted IRA terrorists.

Don't make out it was all part of some righteous plan.

 

[Kentonio]

I am not an alien, I do look at this as a human being. I would respect a decision to put your kids first because my political views are mine and my kids best interests come first. The issue here is that Abbott didn't distinguish this point until it was her own child. Then rather than admitting she was wrong, she made a stupid racist sexist defence of her change of heart.

Then you and people like you who can't admit the truth, condemn everyone who takes issue with her for being such a hypocritical wanker, and calls them racist.

It is a bit bizarre that, she makes an actual racist comment which you can't bring yourself to admit is racist and your critique of those who point this out is that they are white and therefore racist.

Let's keep this debate going because I' have never had an easier win in any debate in my life than this.

It's cute that you think you're winning here. The irony is you're talking about people like me condemning others for calling her hypocritical, when I also called her hypocritical. But of course I've only done that maybe 3 or 4 times now in this very thread in responses to you, so I can understand how you missed it.

Meanwhile I think you need to go and look up the definitions of the words 'racist' and 'sexist' as you're clearly having trouble with them. Both refer to discrimination or prejudice to be shown against a race or sex, OR the idea that one race or sex is superior. Saying something positive about a race or sex does not mean you're saying its superior. If I say that Geordies have a great sense of humour, I'm not implying that people from other cities don't.

Seriously, it's not hard.

 

[SteveJ]

Charities say 'gag law' stops them speaking out on Tory social care plans

They said Theresa May’s decision to means test winter fuel allowance would inadvertently result in some of the poorest pensioners in the country losing the support, adding that “will literally cost lives”.

And they claimed the so-called “dementia tax” on social care in the home would stop people who need support from seeking it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...hem-speaking-out-tory-social-care-plans#img-1

 

[Dan]

 

[fishfingers15]

It's cute that you think you're winning here. The irony is you're talking about people like me condemning others for calling her hypocritical, when I also called her hypocritical. But of course I've only done that maybe 3 or 4 times now in this very thread in responses to you, so I can understand how you missed it.

Meanwhile I think you need to go and look up the definitions of the words 'racist' and 'sexist' as you're clearly having trouble with them. Both refer to discrimination or prejudice to be shown against a race or sex, OR the idea that one race or sex is superior. Saying something positive about a race or sex does not mean you're saying its superior. If I say that Geordies have a great sense of humour, I'm not implying that people from other cities don't.

Seriously, it's not hard.

Can you please two stop this as you are never going to agree on this? Isn't it enough of Diane Abbott already?

 

[rcoobc]

Daily Express: Oily fish can beat dementia

 

[11101]

Roughly 50% of people using them do so because of benefit sanctions and other restrictions on benefit payments, so it's pretty fair to say the use is down to cash flow issues. There is very, very little real poverty in the UK after all.

 

[esmufc07]

Roughly 50% of people using them do so because of benefit sanctions and other restrictions on benefit payments, so it's pretty fair to say the use is down to cash flow issues. There is very, very little real poverty in the UK after all.

Theresa May is that you?

 

[DOTA]

Roughly 50% of people using them do so because of benefit sanctions and other restrictions on benefit payments, so it's pretty fair to say the use is down to cash flow issues. There is very, very little real poverty in the UK after all.

I'm afraid that doesn't take away from the utter idiocy of trying to dismiss the issue by using a term as callous as 'cash flow problem'.

 

[Kentonio]

Roughly 50% of people using them do so because of benefit sanctions and other restrictions on benefit payments, so it's pretty fair to say the use is down to cash flow issues. There is very, very little real poverty in the UK after all.

Generally only people with no money in the first place end up with the kind of 'cash flow problem' that means a single delayed payment would leave them starving ffs.

 

[Ady87]

Roughly 50% of people using them do so because of benefit sanctions and other restrictions on benefit payments, so it's pretty fair to say the use is down to cash flow issues. There is very, very little real poverty in the UK after all.

The only cash flow problem they have is that they have no cash coming in. Poor statement, that.

 

[jderbyshire]

I'm your standard leftist, so naturally I am supporting Corbyn/Labour.

However, isn't it best for Labour in the long-term if the Tories win this election?

Whoever is leading the brexit negotiations is probably going to come out looking like an idiot - the EU are surely going to make an example out of us and condemn us to a bit of recession/hardship?

Is it best to let the Tories endure the chaos and 'make a mess of it'? (rather than having Corbyn as a scapegoat)

We know it doesn't matter who leads the negotiations - the EU will have the final say (ask Yanis Varoufakis)

 

[DOTA]

I'm your standard leftist, so naturally I am supporting Corbyn/Labour.

However, isn't it best for Labour in the long-term if the Tories win this election?

Whoever is leading the brexit negotiations is probably going to come out looking like an idiot - the EU are surely going to make an example out of us and condemn us to a bit of recession/hardship?

Is it best to let the Tories endure the chaos and 'make a mess of it'? (rather than having Corbyn as a scapegoat)

We know it doesn't matter who leads the negotiations - the EU will have the final say (ask Yanis Varoufakis)

This is pretty much my way of dealing emotionally with the inevitable Tory victory. I don't go as far as wishing for it though.

 

[altodevil]

Those newspaper headlines make me depressed. I could certainly see how you could spin it to be an even debate, but yet again they all attack Corbyn. Even the Guardian. God forbid someone thinks we should consider wealth redistribution.

I hope Corbyn attends the last debate, but makes an agreement with the other leaders beforehand to only attack May and the Tories. If they attack each other, coalition of chaos will just be plodded out everywhere. But if they all focus on the Tories they might just have a chance.

Will never happen though, and judging by the state of some people on last night's debate they deserve a good kick up the p45 arse when there's 'no-deal'.

 

[Kentonio]

I'm your standard leftist, so naturally I am supporting Corbyn/Labour.

However, isn't it best for Labour in the long-term if the Tories win this election?

Whoever is leading the brexit negotiations is probably going to come out looking like an idiot - the EU are surely going to make an example out of us and condemn us to a bit of recession/hardship?

Is it best to let the Tories endure the chaos and 'make a mess of it'? (rather than having Corbyn as a scapegoat)

We know it doesn't matter who leads the negotiations - the EU will have the final say (ask Yanis Varoufakis)

Probably yes, but if Corbyn loses then the left is going to get mauled by the New Labour faction. Probably not a great result long term whatever happens.

 

[QuackQuack]

Roughly 50% of people using them do so because of benefit sanctions and other restrictions on benefit payments, so it's pretty fair to say the use is down to cash flow issues. There is very, very little real poverty in the UK after all.

I completely disagree with this. The cost of living is rising every single year and wages aren't. I pretty much buy the same food week in and week out and the past few months I've noticed my weekly shopping bill has increased around £15 a week. My council tax has increased, my water bill has increased. Luckily I'm in a comfortable situation so I'm fine but I can imagine there will be plenty of people who will struggle with this so no I don't think it's a cash flow problem and poverty does exist in this country.

 

[Oscie]

Most people will digest last night via clips on news shows. Not sure the very personable and frankly good performance Corbyn had in the opening audience section will be seen by that wide an audience other those who were watching last night in a segment that went directly against Britain's Got Talent.

Corbyn did well against Paxman in the opening half of that segment but he was never really asked anything of note and instead a serious of ridiculous questions. Again, not sure if that section will be seen by many people other than those who tuned in to watch.

So far he most common bits to pull out of Corbyn's turn was the questions towards the end on national security where he was less comfortable.

May wasn't as terrible in the audience bit as I thought she'd be, but nowhere near as good as Corbyn. But again not sure many people other than those who saw on the night will really see it. On the Paxman interview I thought she was better than she was with Neil but still struggled.

 

[altodevil]

Reckon this is how it will go on the night:

Most recent poll of polls update by electoral calculus. Can see the Tories getting around 45-48% and Labour around 32ish.

 

[rcoobc]

I'm your standard leftist, so naturally I am supporting Corbyn/Labour.

However, isn't it best for Labour in the long-term if the Tories win this election?

Whoever is leading the brexit negotiations is probably going to come out looking like an idiot - the EU are surely going to make an example out of us and condemn us to a bit of recession/hardship?

Is it best to let the Tories endure the chaos and 'make a mess of it'? (rather than having Corbyn as a scapegoat)

We know it doesn't matter who leads the negotiations - the EU will have the final say (ask Yanis Varoufakis)

I hate to sound like a leaver, but I don't think this is going to happen at all. In fact, the worry with these negotiations isn't the EU "looking to make an example of us" it's with the earlier bit; the divorce bill.

If the Tories can get through the divorce bill, they are in the home straight. They can get extensions to negotiations through to 2022, and get the comprehensive free trade agreement they want. Businesses that need full access to the EU will move at least part to the EU, so we will feel a bit of hurt, but nothing great.

Once we have left the EU maybe we will feel the hurt more keenly. But that might take another 5 years before it really kicks in.

If the Tories survive until 2027, then they've had a good 17 year innings. They can't ask for more than that.

Of course, if we can't get the divorce bill agreed we are screwed. If for whatever reason we can't get an extension agreed, we're screwed.

 

[11101]

Generally only people with no money in the first place end up with the kind of 'cash flow problem' that means a single delayed payment would leave them starving ffs.

The only cash flow problem they have is that they have no cash coming in. Poor statement, that.

I completely disagree with this. The cost of living is rising every single year and wages aren't. I pretty much buy the same food week in and week out and the past few months I've noticed my weekly shopping bill has increased around £15 a week. My council tax has increased, my water bill has increased. Luckily I'm in a comfortable situation so I'm fine but I can imagine there will be plenty of people who will struggle with this so no I don't think it's a cash flow problem and poverty does exist in this country.

It's the definition of a cash flow problem if the money coming in is down one month through benefit sanctions. Stupid remark for a politician to make but it's still true.

Wage inequality and cost of living increases are a different issue. As are the reasons the benefit sanctions are being imposed.

 

[DOTA]

It's the definition of a cash flow problem if the money coming in is down one month through benefit sanctions. Stupid remark for a politician to make but it's still true.

Wage inequality and cost of living increases are a different issue. As are the reasons the benefit sanctions are being imposed.

This is the relevant bit though. He rightly gets no credit for technical accuracy as he's completely missing the point.

 

[11101]

This is the relevant bit though. He rightly gets no credit for technical accuracy as he's completely missing the point.

Yes he's missing the emotional element of it. Personally I don't think emotion should have any place in elections. Emotion gets us people like Donald Trump and Diane Abbott.

 

[Oscie]

The figures of people who regularly rely on food banks will tell you more than those who have used a food bank. Even those on relatively high incomes can have cash flow problems. In an ideal world nobody would have to use them and those who regularly do is a shame on the country but the fact someone uses a food bank once doesn't necessarily mean it's something for the government to address.

My brother for example works as a tube driver and on a great wage, few months ago his boiler went and it was a huge expense to replace but a necessity. He ended up borrowing a few quid off me even though I earn a lot less. It's feasible that had someone been in his position without family to help them out they might rely on a food bank. You can't blame the government for his situation. And there'll be many reasons why someone otherwise relatively comfortable might need a food bank.

There are people that earn considerably less than nurses who manage their money to the point where they don't rely on food banks too.

 

[DOTA]

Yes he's missing the emotional element of it. Personally I don't think emotion should have any place in elections. Emotion gets us people like Donald Trump and Diane Abbott.

He's missing more than that. He's missing his government's role in the 'cash flow problem'.