gravy wrote:Seats aside, there's no % majority vote for a right wing government in the last election or any since 1992.
I don't follow what you mean. The Tories didn’t win an outright majority of votes then. No party has for decades in the UK. They won the most votes and formed a government. Labour got the most votes the next three elections, then the Tories again in 2010, though they were unable to form a government on their own because of the Labour bias in the constituency boundaries.
So we’ve not had a majority vote for a right wing or left wing government for a very long time. Unless you count the Lib Dems as left wing but they would object to that, not least as the they formed in a merger with the SDP, who broke way from Labour when it became too extremist.
It's going to be an exciting (relatively) election, so I'll be stopping up all night to watch the results roll in.
The big hitting policies have no relevance to me (NHS, Childcare, School) as I don't use them.
So for me it's immigration, 'pound in my pocket', the economy/deficit.
Was tempted by UKIP, but they want to cancel HS2 so that's them ruled out (I like 'big engineering' infrastructure - bring it on!)
I have to vote tactically in my area - it's currently a Tory 3k advantage, but was a Labour seat last time, so up for grabs. Pointless considering anyone else.
gravy wrote:Seats aside, there's no % majority vote for a right wing government in the last election or any since 1992.
I don't follow what you mean. The Tories didn’t win an outright majority of votes then. No party has for decades in the UK. They won the most votes and formed a government. Labour got the most votes the next three elections, then the Tories again in 2010, though they were unable to form a government on their own because of the Labour bias in the constituency boundaries.
So we’ve not had a majority vote for a right wing or left wing government for a very long time. Unless you count the Lib Dems as left wing but they would object to that, not least as the they formed in a merger with the SDP, who broke way from Labour when it became too extremist.
Sorry, I should have said no % majority vote for a right wing position. There is political distance between Labour / SNP / LibDems but it's marginal compared to distance from the tories.
Anyone who wants a dergulating, market first, smaller government can have one by voting conservative. The majority of people don't. They choose to vote for the parties that don't stand for those things.
I believe that's at the core of the disgust at the LibDems and collapse of their support; no one who voted for them wanted a right wing government but that's what they got.
We will know the answer to many questions. First which of the two main parties gets the most seats (and how closely it corresponds to their share of the vote). Second which of the many possible coalitions is actually possible. This will also collapse the number of parties that are still relevant. UKIP are interesting now as we wonder if they can win any seats outright with a new candidate, and if so how many. But they are unlikely to play a part in coalition negotiations with just 2 or 3 MPs.
pogo wrote:We will know the answer to many questions.
Oh yeah, it'll be probably this and maybe that, from before midnight, there will be results in by then, but it will all be "if the later results follow the current trend ..." until Friday afternoon.
"My way is the way of not fighting":- the book of Enter the Dragon.
They are usually able to call the final result much earlier. Not only do results coming in eliminate uncertainty directly but having some of the results makes predicting the remaining one much more accurate. All polling involves a degree of guesswork – of the turnout, of the weather, of how to extrapolate from a small sample to the whole electorate, of how to deal with those out of reach of polls. Polls can be badly wrong right up to the election. But a lot of these uncertainties vanish on the day of the election, both before polls close and as results come in.
pogo wrote:But a lot of these uncertainties vanish on the day of the election, … as results come in.
in other news, "Pope may, in fact, be a Catholic"
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"
pogo wrote:But a lot of these uncertainties vanish on the day of the election, … as results come in.
in other news, "Pope may, in fact, be a Catholic"
We'll get at most twenty results on the day, maybe not one, though that's probably equally as unlikely as twenty. The polls close at 22.00.00, the day ends at 23.59.59, that really isn't a lot of time to count thousands of votes.
"My way is the way of not fighting":- the book of Enter the Dragon.
One only needs to think back to 1992, or rewatch the BBC coverage below. At 10:00pm the BBC were predicting a hung parliament, the Tories 25 votes short of an overall majority. By 2:00 (3:59 – that’s 3 hours 59 minutes – into the video) they were forecasting a Conservative majority.
Pollsters would say they learned from that election, but this election is unlike any other. The first where more than the three main parties are important. UKIP in particular are a new force in British politics; they are unlikely to win many seats but may take votes from all three main parties in unpredictable ways. We will probably know very quickly how important a factor they are.
pogo wrote:One only needs to think back to 1992, or rewatch the BBC coverage below. At 10:00pm the BBC were predicting a hung parliament, the Tories 25 votes short of an overall majority. By 2:00 (3:59 – that’s 3 hours 59 minutes – into the video) they were forecasting a Conservative majority.
That's not on the day. On the day is *before* 00.00 the next day.
"My way is the way of not fighting":- the book of Enter the Dragon.
As I noted there are things we will know a lot quicker, such as the impact of UKIP, as well as things we can only know on the day, such as the impact of the weather on turnout. Some people think that bad weather will be bad for Labour, as their voters are more likely to be put off by bad weather.
Also you won’t have to wait for the BBC with their relatively conservative (with a small ‘c’) approach. You can have the BBC on the TV or radio while you watch a couple of news feeds provided by newspapers or news organisations. With far more people working on it the results could be known a lot earlier.
pogo wrote:Some people think that bad weather will be bad for Labour, as their voters are more likely to be put off by bad weather.
Are those the same people who read tea leaves to tell you your fortune, if you pass silver across their palm?
Seriously, what the shit could be the causal mechanism between being a Labour voter and not liking rain, that somehow magically doesn't apply to any other political party just as equally?
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
Ugh dammit Farage seemed fairly reasonable in his AMA episode. I'm trying to hate him
I wish he'd had more of a chance to comment on reversing the public smoking ban though, as I think that's an absolutely horrific idea. I was talking with a younger drinker about what it was like in the bad old days when you'd go to the pub and walk into a big cloud of smoke, and it made me feel very old. I felt exactly like the older people who used to tell me how horrific schools used to be or whatever.
On the "logic" of Labour voters, aren't they pretty strong up here in the North? Let me tell you, we're used to rain. I've seen many outdoor events here absolutely buzzing when it's been tipping it down, you just happen to see a crowd of brollies instead of heads. No one up here gives a fuck about getting wet if they want to do something. So if anything I'd think the opposite. But hey, regardless of political leaning, if someone is a bit on the fence about whether they can be arsed to do something, bad weather makes an excellent excuse and is very frequently utilised.
