UK General Election 2017

[Nearly Sane]

We're fucked then.

If the Tories lose any seats though there is a greater chance that some of the worst aspects might get watered down. They need to lose about 15 for there to be much chance of any significant changes to policy getting through e g. A reversal to the rapeclause. So to some extent there are gradations of fucked.   

[Nearly Sane]

Had a quick look at the betting market on turnout. It's currently looking around 63% as the prediction which would be about 3 and half points down on 2015. This would still be higher than 2001 and 2005 which I think were in part to them being seen as foregone conclusions. Any drop is usually seen as more likely an issue for Labour and now in Scotland the SNP than other parties though I suspect the Lib Dems would also prefer a higher turnout.


Given the election/referendum fatigue and the ongoing effect of change to voter registration  that actually seems a reasonably impressive turnout to me but you would normally think that the higher probability of the over 65s voting would definitely favour the Tories. You have to think that the 'dementia tax' and the surrounding farce would be the thing that any decent strategist should be telling every Labour person to hammering on every possible occasion.

[jakswan]

Oh dear, I thought he did great on Sky as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520

[ProfessorDavey]

Indeed, the only way for that not to happen in that case would be for some Tories to resign the whip and function as independents in a bizarre rainbow coalition. I would suspect that the Tories would need to lose at least 35 seats directly to Labour for there to be any real chance, and even then a slim one, of an alternative govt.

I'm still struggling to see how the Tories could achieve anything other than an increase in the size of their majority.

I know they have seen their lead shrink over the course of the campaign, but all that is really doing is moving from overwhelming landslide territory, to solid comfortable majority territory.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh dear, I thought he did great on Sky as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520

Yep, certainly not his finest hour. Still he didn't lie, make up figures, or talk about a policy that didn't have any figures.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm still struggling to see how the Tories could achieve anything other than an increase in the size of their majority.

I know they have seen their lead shrink over the course of the campaign, but all that is really doing is moving from overwhelming landslide territory, to solid comfortable majority territory.

Don't disagree. The one thing would be if the polls narrowed further there is still thought to be an advantage to Labour in the current electoral map, so a close result could where Labour get slightly less votes e.g. within about 2.5% could still see them with the most seats. At this time, I don't see it getting that close but even were the polls to slow down in terms of the move to Labour but continue with that trend, it could be interesting.

My own suspicion is that the Tories will get about 370 seats, giving them a majority of pretty near 100 but it's a very weird election, and it would be easy to be very wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

Don't disagree. The one thing would be if the polls narrowed further there is still thought to be an advantage to Labour in the current electoral map, so a close result could where Labour get slightly less votes e.g. within about 2.5% could still see them with the most seats. At this time, I don't see it getting that close but even were the polls to slow down in terms of the move to Labour but continue with that trend, it could be interesting.

My own suspicion is that the Tories will get about 370 seats, giving them a majority of pretty near 100 but it's a very weird election, and it would be easy to be very wrong.

I think the seat advantage to Labour on equal vote share that we used to accept is no longer the case. If fact the reverse os now true. This is in part due to the wipe out in Scotland, so Labour used to end up with a very efficient vote share/seats outcome in Scotland, but that is now completely reversed, where in 2015 they polled nearly 25% of the vote in Scotland, but won just a single seat.

So, for example if you put both Tories and Labour on 40% of the vote, electoral calculus predicts Tories winning 323 seats and Labour on 248.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the seat advantage to Labour on equal vote share that we used to accept is no longer the case. If fact the reverse os now true. This is in part due to the wipe out in Scotland, so Labour used to end up with a very efficient vote share/seats outcome in Scotland, but that is now completely reversed, where in 2015 they polled nearly 25% of the vote in Scotland, but won just a single seat.

So, for example if you put both Tories and Labour on 40% of the vote, electoral calculus predicts Tories winning 323 seats and Labour on 248.

Ah, thanks for that. I have to say that would be an interesting set of assumptions about where the extra 11% of votes would go.

Having gone to the site I see they have added a tactical voting feature. Playing with it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah, thanks for that. I have to say that would be an interesting set of assumptions about where the extra 11% of votes would go.

Having gone to the site I see they have added a tactical voting feature. Playing with it.

I put in

Tory - 40%
Labour - 40%
LibDem - 9%
UKIP - 5%
Green - 3%

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Corbyn couldn't say how much childcare policy would cost.
BBC conclusion seems to be Corbyn incompetent & May competent.
BBC subsequently trumpets May statement that only she is prepared for Brexit negotiations.

Source BBC news

[Nearly Sane]

Having played with it a little bit, have found a feature. if you reduce the SNP vote to about 40% and  have a reasonably high level of tactical voting a number of the SNP seats go to Others and show up as a minority party. I
ETA Ah that was my mistake in the form filling.

[ProfessorDavey]

Corbyn couldn't say how much childcare policy would cost.

Pretty incompetent, surely they should all have learned by now that when you make a spending commitment you need to be able to say:

1. How much it will cost
2. Where that extras money is going to come from

That said, I can't help laughing on this issue (or maybe crying) given that I part own a nursery which would have to deliver the 'free' child-care. And by free what that actually means is that the nursery receives a set rate of funding per hour from government (via local authorities), which is dependent on the nursery offering that place to parents free.

So the Tories have played this game too - in their 2015 manifesto they committed to providing 30 hours 'free' - currently it is only 15 hours. Did they cost this up - did they heck. This is to be rolled out in September this year, and therefore it is critical that nurseries know how much they will receive for each 'free' hour (which by the way is way less than they would otherwise charge) as this makes the difference between running a viable or non viable business.

Ever since the election in 2015 we have been trying to get clarity on the rate, so we can model and plan for its effect. The rate (and therefore the cost of the manifesto pledge) was only confirmed in late March this year - some 2 years after it was put in their manifesto.

Point being that it is easy to throw some ill thought out plan into a manifesto - but not only do you need to cost it, you also need to assess its impact on businesses and individuals who will be affected by its implementation.

[Nearly Sane]

Having done some playing about on the calculus, it emphasises that the only way for Labour to do particularly badly is if one of UKIP or the Lib Dems do better than expected.Most predictiions within the bounds of the Opinion polls currently given a majority of 50-70. it looks to me as if the bet to make on this would be for the Tory seats to be lower than then 378.5 that is the current mid point.


Note this does give more credibility to jakswan's position that thr Tories coukd get a good majority and not fatally damage Corbyn.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pretty incompetent, surely they should all have learned by now that when you make a spending commitment you need to be able to say:

1. How much it will cost
2. Where that extras money is going to come from

But Labour have been far better at being up front with costings than the tories. Obviously the majority will take the hypocritical line of not only forgiving the tories but switching on the blame for labour for a lesser failure.

I just don't get the will and the enthusiasm of the GBP for taking it up the Jaxi.

[Nearly Sane]

Pretty incompetent, surely they should all have learned by now that when you make a spending commitment you need to be able to say:

1. How much it will cost
2. Where that extras money is going to come from
..

I don't think the policy lacked this in this case thougb you can argue that the second may not be correct. Rather Corbyn couldn't recall the figure.

[ProfessorDavey]

Note this does give more credibility to jakswan's position that thr Tories coukd get a good majority and not fatally damage Corbyn.

Yes I agree with that - and it is my nightmare scenario and one that I'm becoming more and more convinced will happen.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't think the policy lacked this in this case thougb you can argue that the second may not be correct. Rather Corbyn couldn't recall the figure.

Yes and this will be trumpeted by the BBC and the media to gloss over May's performance on TV

[Nearly Sane]

Yes I agree with that - and it is my nightmare scenario and one that I'm becoming more and more convinced will happen.

Surely though the only other likely alternative is a Tory landslide of such proportions that no Labour leader no matter how good would be able to recover from unless the economy tanked to the extent that we were all livng in caves?

[Nearly Sane]

Now this definitely is a feature on Electoral Calculus., in the middle of some playing about I changed a prediction only from the Tories getting 40% to 41% and they lost a seat

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes I agree with that - and it is my nightmare scenario and one that I'm becoming more and more convinced will happen.

There is a dilemma here but surely not a nightmare. Corbyn I would imagine would not fight 2022. Labour could not reverse Corbyn's policies on the grounds of unpopularity and I would imagine that there would be a Corbynite successor. On the other hand the conservatives and the press have a record of neutralizing the labour right.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Surely though the only other likely alternative is a Tory landslide of such proportions that no Labour leader no matter how good would be able to recover from unless the economy tanked to the extent that we were all livng in caves?

or all taking it up the cave?

[Nearly Sane]

Mmm really?


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-general-election-christian-fundamentalism-gay-exorcism-homophobia-abortion-a7762561.html

[Enki]

I don't get involved in any political arguments on this forum. My vote is my own, and it will remain that way.

However,this appeared on Facebook and I strongly suggest that anyone interested in the 2017 election, should look at this:

https://www.facebook.com/181304265697578/photos/a.181472865680718.1073741828.181304265697578/181472849014053/?type=1&theater

Be interested in hearing your views.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't get involved in any political arguments on this forum. My vote is my own, and it will remain that way.

However,this appeared on Facebook and I strongly suggest that anyone interested in the 2017 election, should look at this:

https://www.facebook.com/181304265697578/photos/a.181472865680718.1073741828.181304265697578/181472849014053/?type=1&theater

Be interested in hearing your views.

Idiocy by meme

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Mmm really?


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-general-election-christian-fundamentalism-gay-exorcism-homophobia-abortion-a7762561.html

What were we supposed to draw from this?