Poll: General election voting round 5 (final one)
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
None of that says anything to disprove what i said, in fact is reinforces it once you remove the right-wing bias.
FullFact themselves agree that around 500K have used the the food banks last year because the average number of repeat users is 2.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...food-bank-data-complicated-yes-exaggerated-no
Last edited:
I'm not the one making claims. You made claims and failed to evidence most of them (and that's being generous). Why should I have to address points you haven't evidenced? That's completely retarded. Do you understand how to debate with evidence?
Cool - people have an opinions. Fantastic. No one's denying that. No one's claiming there's an absolute consensus. Gee whizz, the respected folk at www.electionforecast.co.uk also have an opinion.
With a bunch of the predictions, if you're autistic and just look at the numbers you'd think Ed's a shoe-in, with the SNP and other lefties propping him up... but that'd be ignoring the human element.
However, there are a myriad of factors, including perceived legitimacy. You might struggle with that nuance, but there's a difference between legal legitimacy and perceived legitimacy in the eyes of the public... and the latter is a significant factor.
There's also the perception of the supporters of the different parties - for example, the SNP will have concerns about how their party will react if they don't vote down the Tories+, but they'll also have concerns about how their party will react if they prop up a Labour minority government but don't have any significant say in their legislative programme (eg. what if SNP supporters think they voted SNP and got Labour, if Labour refuse to deal... so what was the point in voting SNP? They may as well have voted Labour).
Then Labour will be concerned how their future electoral chances will be affected by 'doing a deal' with the SNP in the eyes of public (that would include no actual deal, where the public perceive there to be an effective deal)... leading to a collapse of their vote in Scotland and losing it forever, as well as it affecting their vote in rUK if people perceive they've ~done a deal with the Devil~.
Then the Lib Dems will have concerns about doing a deal with the Tories because it could lead to the same problems as this time, then they could have concerns about a deal involving Labour because of the ~perceived deal with the SNP~ factor, as well as if the public will see it as a morally legitimate to form a government with the second largest party.
Obviously there are other considerations on top of all that.
http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats
There is the breakdown of referral causes including 30% due to benefits delays, and 22% due to low income.
Knock yourself out and go find evidence to disprove those stats
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Latest Guardian poll prediction puts Lab and Con literally neck and neck at 273 seats each.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/feb/27/guardian-poll-projection
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/feb/27/guardian-poll-projection
It's not about disproving those stats - I'm willing to accept their word on those stats. The point is those stats don't back up your claim. You've done that before... providing evidence which doesn't support your claims.
What proportion of that 30% were people on Universal Credit? You claimed Universal Credit 'can be firmly blamed for many of the instances [of food bank use]', but you haven't presented evidence to show that... just that 30% say they've used a food bank because of benefit delays, which doesn't prove it's down to Universal Credit.
Then, do you have evidence to say what proportion of that 22% citing low income is down to the rise in zero hour contracts and the minimum wage being below the living wage? You said they were each 'strong contributors', but what evidence do you have for that? It could, for example, be people only on benefits and citing a low income, rather than it being people on zero hour contracts and people on minimum wage citing a low income.
---
You didn't challenge the other part of the post, so presumably you agree what I've said is fair?
I never said Universal credit is the sole reason, i listed a whole load of reasons such as minimum wage, unemployment, benefits delays, zero-hour contracts, etc, etc.
Universal credit may account for zero cases, who cares, it doesn't matter at all. The important point is there is a growing need for food banks, a number of factors are to blame.
You are ignoring everything I say and concentrating on 1 single aspect and trying to disregard everything else because you can't disprove it, again. You have a habit of carefully ignoring facts you don't agree with.
OCuk gave a DB error when i tried to answer the 2nd part of your post. I am not ignoring human elements in the election, but I am putting small doss on most of those scenarios. SNP working with the Tories would be incredibly remote for example. Even if the Tories manage to brainwash people into thinking that it is illegitimate for the party without the most seats to rule, that wont mean Cameron will become PM because labour simply wouldn't let a false claim like that illegally block them from approach the queen, at the most it will force a new election, more likely he will just raise hared for milliband as he huffs in a corner.
I think you are overstating the human element, the rules aren't there for open interpretation but is the basis of the constitution. Cameron can't just ignore the rules because he doesn't like the result.
There are other human factors that I do take into account, eg. despite nick clegg saying he will work with the largest party many of his own MPS wont accept another Tory coalition.
It is actually the human element that makes Cameron's odds lower, e.g the SNP are much more liekly to vote yes to Labour than let the Tories get in so taking the abstract odds form the polls and modulating by the human factor, for in my personal opinion that is based on professionals (no sources), the odds for the conservatives drop further.
No, I think the best chances for the Tories to get in power would be if the polls are wildly wrong and the tories get far more votes than anyone is predicting. It is hard to to but a figure on that, historically polls have been very poor but we have more polls than ever before, better sampling techniques, and lots of improved methodology in part taken form America where polling has been more accurate despite much larger and more diverse populations. Also, a small margin of error wont be enough for the conservatives, so the shy tory effect wont be sufficient initself.
One of the biggest chances for the conservatives is if the UKIP are massively over estimated then the Tories will gain quite a few more seats, as will the lib dems. UKIP voter share is much less certain being a new party of this size. But that error could go the other way, the UKIP could do way better than the polls suggest (very shy kippers), in which case Cameron's chances will only reduce.
Last edited:
It could go either way, on one hand Labour/SNP would have the numbers to block another ConDem coalition, but on the other the Tories would have the numbers to cause headaches for a LabDem coalition especially if the SNP objected to a policy it was putting forward.
It is quite possible at this point we may get a hung parliament followed by a second election because nobody could get the numbers to form a stable government.
If predictions are accurate then only the following combinations will give the 322 seats needed for a majority:
- Labour + LibDem + SNP (344)
- Labour + SNP + PC + Green (322)
- Labour + SNP + PC + Green + SDLP (325)
- Tory + Labour (547)
1-3 are out because Miliband has said Labour will not form a coalition with the SNP (he's trying to look strong by saying it, but he has no choice, it would be suicide for Labour both in England and Scotland).
4 is laughable.
The only somewhat viable option seems to be a Labour + LibDem coalition (293) which would just outnumber Tory + DUP + UKIP (290) and would see the SNP either back them or abstain (except for Trident, but that would have Tory backing anyway).
Of course if nobody can form a government we would see a second election, which would strengthen the Tories due to many voters who defected to UKIP returning after seeing UKIP fail to meet their expectations in the first election, though of course this would also see some Labour defectors return from Green/SNP, it's way too early to guess how a second election would pan out.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
What a mess.
I could be time to call the SNPs bluff.
Labour must be kicking themselves now. Devolution was their brainchild. Assured to give them a permanent power base in Scotland and Wales regardless of results at Westminster. It could well be the end of the Labour party.
Last edited:
Given how inaccurate polls have recently been, I think it'll be interesting and somewhat amusing to see just how far off they are this time, in 1992 for example, they were predicting either a hung parliament or a small Labour majority for pretty much the whole of the campaign yet the Conservatives ended up with 336 seats over Labours 271!
In the last general election, pre election polls predicted large gains for the Liberal Democrats which ultimately failed to materialise.
It'll be undoubtedly interesting to see how it all pans out, I'm expecting a Labour / SNP coalition (despite what Miliband says to the contrary) and then watch the fireworks once England wakes up to the fact their dog (Poodle?) has a very Scottish nationalist tail.....
Indeed,if ever a political lesson in being careful what you wish for, this is it! whilst I doubt it'll be the end of Labour itself, I hope it spells the end for their current "leadership"
I think history is going to judge Labour rightfully harshly for what they have unleashed upon the rest of us, should this happen.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
92 was a long time ago now. Polls have come a long way since then.
I think the Tories will do better, as will the Lib Dems, and the opposite for Labour and the SNP. But not by much. I think the arithmetic will make any deal practically impossible. Even an Lab/SNP coalition might not be enough.
I'm no sure how the Labour party reinvent themselves in Scotland now, without alienating parts of England.
The problem with the SNP is they don't have the inconvenience of actually running a country. Policy ideas ore cheap, and that's hard to fight.
Last edited:
Gotta love the rhetoric, "don't leave Scotland"...but, "stay away from our "English" parliament".
So much ammo for the SNP, they could literally not bother with public relations and still win loads, sometimes wonder at the mental efficacy of the nation.
So much ammo for the SNP, they could literally not bother with public relations and still win loads, sometimes wonder at the mental efficacy of the nation.
That its nessecary to keep the right wingers out of power?
Thing is what would it matter. The deal would be done and we'd have a few days at most of the media slating him for it. Then we'll move onto the next big thing. I don't think there's much the public could do for the next four years.
Because he doesn't need a deal, the chance of the SNP voting in anyway to allow the Tories is are extremely slim, would be very damaging to the SNP., and the Tories wouldN't like it ether.
- Status