UK General Election Day and Results: 'Parliament is Well Hung.' - Polidicks

Also, look at the difference in retweets and likes the two different polls have! Edit: No auto-merge?

[QUOTE=Mythman;52308970]So either the Conservatives have a 12% lead or they have a 1% lead. :why: One of those polling companies is going to be savaged by the party that loses come 9th June. (Before anyone starts claiming there's going to be a Labour majority - remember Labour have to be ahead in the polls by a significant margin for that to happen)[/QUOTE] Although you'd hope they have actually started accounting for shy tories after the last election! There may actually be such thing as a shy Labour voter now, with all the controversy surrounding Corbyn.

With all the factors in play, it's completely hopeless. For example: [media]https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/871096654212063232[/media] But that's the fun part. Before the dark times.

Digging through the poll and sampling date, it seems that the polls differing heavily due to different assumptions of turnout. The polls with a smaller Conservative lead generally have very high turnout weightings to young people. For example the Survation poll, [media]https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/871090909114490881[/media] believes that young people will vote in extraordinary numbers: 82% of them will vote compared to ~44% in 2015. Also it seems that 72% of people who responded to the Survation poll said they had watched the BBC QT debate. For context, ~6.5% of the UK population watched the BBC QT special in 2015. So I think there is a reasonable chance that the Survation poll is borked and it is an outlier.

[QUOTE=Grizz;52308987]With all the factors in play, it's completely hopeless. For example: [media]https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/871096654212063232[/media] But that's the fun part. Before the dark times.[/QUOTE] To be honest I have moved from cautiously optimistic to pessimistic. Last night was last chance to get his message across, but it was ruined by nutjobs. And to be honest no poll will change that.

Voting in Britain is seriously fucked. You guys should have voted in Alternative Vote as a start, and then switched to a system similar to ours.

FPTP has no advantages over any other constituency voting system other than it being incredibly marginally more simple (on the face of it, before you factor tactical voting) for the voter and a little easier to count.

[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;52309133]FPTP has no advantages over any other constituency voting system other than it being incredibly marginally more simple (on the face of it, before you factor tactical voting) for the voter and a little easier to count.[/QUOTE] It also doesn't kill babies like AV would. [editline]3rd June 2017[/editline] [img]https://leftfootforward.org/images/2011/02/No2AV-baby-poster.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Ziks;52309150]It also doesn't kill babies like AV would. [editline]3rd June 2017[/editline] [img]https://leftfootforward.org/images/2011/02/No2AV-baby-poster.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B]Campaign funding[/B] In May 2011, three days before the referendum vote, The Guardian newspaper released an analysis of the accounts of donations to the campaign, showing that it been funded almost exclusively by Conservative Party donors[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOtoAV[/url] :vomit:

I have consulted my magic dice of power, the fabled dice of Bulcraappen and I predict that the conservatives will win with a majority of 6%!

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52303965]Not evil. Different value systems. They are the people who go on about agency and believe in concepts like social darwinism where those who are best will always get to the top and they're at the top because they deserve to be. They don't believe in too much welfare because they think too much welfare makes people lazy and not want to work, welfare is a tool to placate people and shut them up rather than a tool to improve lives. It's an honour based value system. Its a value system similar to nietzsche's master morality they value strength and success over compassion and dignity. The simpler solution slipped the net because its at odds with that ideology. It would involve taking money from people who, in their eyes, earned every last penny of it and would be giving it to people who, in their eyes, didn't earn it because they didn't work hard enough. I think some measure of being out of touch does apply though - the politicians tend to be doing fairly well and will use that as a yard stick by which to gauge everyone else. Even those who came from the bottom may overlook the breaks and lucky opportunities they've had and [URL="http://thewireless.co.nz/articles/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate"]wrongly attribute[/URL] their success to their own skill of hard work (that factors in but opportunity does also). Those who got unlucky or simply started with less are often considered lazy and undeserving of support they need. I think also the success of businesses and businessmen/women is wrongfully [b]all[/b] attributed to the management and the principle - in truth the business wouldn't have succeeded with the state supported workers, the state supported consumers and the state supported infrastructure; all of which require taxes. Not evil by any means, I'm sure many people here will sympathise with this. Just a different value system. part of this too is that it's no 2 sides scale, people will fall all along the spectrum and if people's views don't align someone will end up being called a marxist or a far right foon Also there is a tendency for those with money and power to adopt this ideology themselves, then use that money and power to project that ideology and ensure that government policy disproportionately reflects their interests[/QUOTE] You pmed me about this. Yes there are different value systems. Here is a skeleton of an idea of what I have been working on: Every idea has an intrinsic structure and expression of that structure. This is based on my study of cults. An evil idea has an over reliance on what I called "cultic devices". A cultic device is used to suppress people, to get them act against them selves. For example let's take social justice and Christianty. The left is known for wanting to destroy the traditional family. What did Christ himself propose? Mathew 10:35 [QUOTE]34Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household [/QUOTE] In both ideals, the cu!tic device used is the use of destroying the family unit and creating internal divisions to over turn the society. The end goal of this cultic device is to create a conflict so fierce people have no choice but choose sides for survival. The problem with this device once one side wins, it degenerates into purity spirals. The ideal end up suffering endless schisms and thus endless chaos. To keep such crap in check requires an overbearing governmental system. Another cultic device is invisible malevolent forces. In Christian thought, it is the devil. In social justice it is known as " people of privelage" In Nazism, the malevolent forces are "Jewish conspiracy". Another cultic device is unquestionable agents. In Christianity it is god. God told me to do it. God is on my side. In social justice it is referred as the " right side of history". Nazis it is the leader who is not to be questioned. A final cultic device is the "big fallible lie". Also known as crazy making. Christianity it is god and hell. Prove it doesn't exists and you get an angry mob chasing you. That the worst case. Best case is dismissal and more bullshit. This behavior can be seen in flat earthers when confronted about their views. They just make up more lies. In every case each idea has the same structure but different expression. The history of these ideas has shown the same results which is genocide. Which means each one is bad in equal measure

[QUOTE=gokiyono;52309207][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOtoAV[/url] :vomit:[/QUOTE] While that's bad, But worst that even Labour Party voters back in 2011 refused supported AV despite Party under Miliband will support AV for it's benefits. And I think it's some see AV that would get then Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg rising without any proof that will effect with AV system? While others seeing it as a distraction for party's future too (but enough it's seemed was true). :hairpull: [QUOTE]Many Labour Party members. Although party leader Ed Miliband supported a 'Yes' vote, over 200 Labour MPs and Peers supported the 'No' campaign. Among the prominent Labour Party members against AV were Margaret Beckett (acting as President of the NOtoAV campaign ), Caroline Flint, David Blunkett, Lord Reid of Cardowan, John Prescott and Lord Falconer of Thoroton.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Labour MPs cheerleading the case for the existing system include John Healey, the most senior shadow cabinet member against electoral reform. Writing in the Independent, Healey branded the alternative vote is "perverse". Claiming that the momentum for a "No" vote is gathering pace ahead of the referendum on 5 May, Healey wrote that the referendum should be "a long way" down Labour's political priorities. "The reason the number of Labour MPs in favour of a No vote runs into three figures is because we haven't been persuaded that AV is an upgrade to the voting system. The arguments just don't stack up."[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/mar/16/ed-miliband-av-referendum-yes-vote"]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/mar/16/ed-miliband-av-referendum-yes-vote[/URL] [URL="https://web.archive.org/web/20111214091116/http://labour.no2av.org/labour-mps-lords-say-no-to-alternative-vote/"]https://web.archive.org/web/20111214091116/http://labour.no2av.org/labour-mps-lords-say-no-to-alternative-vote/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Guriosity;52310456]what are cults[/QUOTE] How is any of this even tangentially related to UK politics or the election?

[QUOTE=gokiyono;52309207][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOtoAV[/url] :vomit:[/QUOTE] The £250 million was a lie too, it was largely made up of the cost of the referendum (already spent, no matter how you vote) and the cost of electronic vote counting machines (there were no plans to buy any) Seems to be a running theme with UK referendums, who's ready for the £450 million lie in the next one?

[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;52311852]How is any of this even tangentially related to UK politics or the election?[/QUOTE] Yeah I wasn't really sure how to respond to any of that. The video of Amber Rudd is going viral at the moment.

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52311897]The £250 million was a lie too, it was largely made up of the cost of the referendum (already spent, no matter how you vote) and the cost of electronic vote counting machines (there were no plans to buy any) Seems to be a running theme with UK referendums, who's ready for the £450 million lie in the next one?[/QUOTE] Seems like lies is a common theme with right wing politicians all over the world

Corbyn campaigning in Carlisle doesn't sit well with me right now. Had a nice speach at the beginning going out to the victims of last nights attack, but then plugged the line "Terrorism should not stop us from campaigning". Although I agree we shouldn't let such acts get in the way of our democratic process, it's stomach turning to see him take news coverage away from what happened last night, and rather using it as a platform to promote himself. Today shouldn't be about campaigning, sorry.

[QUOTE=dingusnin;52311944]Corbyn campaigning in Carlisle doesn't sit well with me right now. Had a nice speach at the beginning going out to the victims of last nights attack, but then plugged the line "Terrorism should not stop us from campaigning". Although I agree we shouldn't let such acts get in the way of our democratic process, it's stomach turning to see him take news coverage away from what happened last night, and rather using it as a platform to promote himself. Today shouldn't be about campaigning, sorry.[/QUOTE] Politicising tragedy isn't nice, but when such tragedy can be attributed in part to the failure of policy, it'd be irresponsible not to call attention to it. If proper police funding reduces the chances of future attacks succeeding to even a negligible degree, it's not worth giving up over sentiment.

[QUOTE=dingusnin;52311944]Corbyn campaigning in Carlisle doesn't sit well with me right now. Had a nice speach at the beginning going out to the victims of last nights attack, but then plugged the line "Terrorism should not stop us from campaigning". Although I agree we shouldn't let such acts get in the way of our democratic process, it's stomach turning to see him take news coverage away from what happened last night, and rather using it as a platform to promote himself. Today shouldn't be about campaigning, sorry.[/QUOTE] I would disagree now actually, for one we've already had one day of suspension and it's important to highlight that something needs to be done. By the way, if you feel this way about Corbyn then you also have to condemn the clear campaign message that Theresa May gave earlier today.

[media]https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/871344774741151744[/media] Man, I don't think I've seen a more stressed person than this officer. [editline]4th June 2017[/editline] E: Disregard the post, it's totally unrelated to the thread.

[QUOTE={TFS} Rock Su;52312066][media]https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/871344774741151744[/media] Man, I don't think I've seen a more stressed person than this officer. [editline]4th June 2017[/editline] E: Disregard the post, it's totally unrelated to the thread.[/QUOTE] Nah, it's related. This is one of the bigger reasons I'll be voting against the tories. Stretching our police thin is irresponsible and negligent [I]at best[/I]

[QUOTE={TFS} Rock Su;52312066][media]https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/871344774741151744[/media] Man, I don't think I've seen a more stressed person than this officer. [editline]4th June 2017[/editline] E: Disregard the post, it's totally unrelated to the thread.[/QUOTE] Thread is now election general, it's entirely related. Trying to keep the OP unbiased, but it's pretty bullshit that the BBC is "greying out" Liar Liar [video=youtube;HxN1STgQXW8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxN1STgQXW8[/video] Usually you can hear a 30 second sample of any song in the charts on the BBC, but they won't let you listen to this, even though it's hit number 4. [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/liar-liar-ge2017-theresa-may-protest-song-greyed-bbc-radio-1-captain-skaplay-button-ofcom-charts-a7770586.html[/url]

[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3214231/Controversial-rap-star-Tyler-Creator-BANNED-Britain-lyrics-encouraging-violence-intolerance.html[/url] Just remembered this. So Theresa May banned Tyler, The Creator from the UK for lyrical content. Such a backwards person it's not even funny.

[QUOTE=dingusnin;52311944]Corbyn campaigning in Carlisle doesn't sit well with me right now. Had a nice speach at the beginning going out to the victims of last nights attack, but then plugged the line "Terrorism should not stop us from campaigning". Although I agree we shouldn't let such acts get in the way of our democratic process, it's stomach turning to see him take news coverage away from what happened last night, and rather using it as a platform to promote himself. Today shouldn't be about campaigning, sorry.[/QUOTE] Yeah but the election is in the three days.

David Cameron's former policy guru has called for Theresa May to resign over police cuts. [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-resign-security-failures-steve-hilton-london-attack-manchester-westminster-terror-david-a7772931.html[/url] Quite interesting seeing as he worked with her directly.

[QUOTE=dingusnin;52311944]Corbyn campaigning in Carlisle doesn't sit well with me right now. Had a nice speach at the beginning going out to the victims of last nights attack, but then plugged the line "Terrorism should not stop us from campaigning". Although I agree we shouldn't let such acts get in the way of our democratic process, it's stomach turning to see him take news coverage away from what happened last night, and rather using it as a platform to promote himself. Today shouldn't be about campaigning, sorry.[/QUOTE] An election is the perfect time to talk about this sort of thing. You guys have a clear choice to make about how you're going to address terrorism in the next four years and it's imperative you make the right one. The tragedy highlights that. Noone is taking advantage of the victims by saying so. It's also perfectly appropriate to question Theresa May's credentials in this matter. You don't want someone who cuts police forces in times like this.

[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;52314577]Sinking feeling that Conservatives are going to win again. No matter how much shit the Tories do - the older generation seems dead set on voting for them, even if they agree 100% with Labour policies and not at all with May's. I don't like it, they fucked us with Brexit and now they're fucking us with this too. Fucking die already, all you do is spend your time consuming the tabloid shit, watching BGT and then hoping we nuke the middle east.[/QUOTE] They were always going to win 100%, the real question is by how much.

[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;52314621]But WHY, they're literally doing everything they can to lose - they represent nobody but the richest of this country. What the fuck is wrong with people.[/QUOTE] Half of me hopes they win. But with a majority of only 1. That way we only need to convince one conservative to rebel and vote against their shitty policies. And that way they can be responsible for Brexit. Because it's becoming clearer and clearer they are trying to lose on purpose.

[QUOTE=Shadow801;52314633]Half of me hopes they win. But with a majority of only 1. That way we only need to convince one conservative to rebel and vote against their shitty policies. And that way they can be responsible for Brexit. Because it's becoming clearer and clearer they are trying to lose on purpose.[/QUOTE] That's pretty much what happened last year in the Australian Election, Liberal party got cocky and triggered an early election to prove "how strong they are" or some shit, lost a lot of seats and only got in by one seat :v:. I don't know how it works in the UK though, does a party just need to get over 50% to govern or is it more complicated than that?

[QUOTE=Whomobile;52314923]That's pretty much what happened last year in the Australian Election, Liberal party got cocky and triggered an early election to prove "how strong they are" or some shit, lost a lot of seats and only got in by one seat :v:. I don't know how it works in the UK though, does a party just need to get over 50% to govern or is it more complicated than that?[/QUOTE] It's basically 50%, yeah. There's 650 MPs that can sit in Parliament, so a party needs >325 for a majority. There's actually 1,450 seats in total but the remaining 800 belong to the house of lords so they're not to play for.