• To celebrate the release of Halo: The Master Chief Collection on Steam, Xbox Games Studios has provided 5 Steam copies of the game and 5 Xbox One copies of the game! We will be giving these away in the Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Some Steam copies will also be given away to the PC Gaming Era community.
  • An old favorite feature returns: Q&ERA is back! This time we'll be collecting questions for Remedy Entertainment, makers of Max Payne, Alan Wake, Quantum Break, and Control. Members can submit questions for the next 5 days, 58 minutes, 54 seconds. Submissions will close on Dec 12, 2019 at 12:00 AM.

UK General Election 12th December 2019 |OT1| Hindsight is 20/19

solidussnaku

Member
Nov 29, 2017
1,371
The problem with this is that its a rolling average, it may look similar on a poll of polls like this but not if you isolate the last few days. We're 9 days before the election and the last 10 polls have a con lead of: 12 (newest), 7, 9, 13, 9, 15, 10, 8, 6, 7 - an average of 9.6 and a low of 6. Compare that to the same point in 2017: 6, 3, 6, 10, 12, 4, 6, 7, 14, 12 - an average of 8.0 with a low of 3. In the coming days in 2017 we saw a lot more single figure polls including one showing a 1pt CON lead and another in fact showing a 2pt LAB lead. The 2017 gap continued to close whereas right now it seems to be stalling slightly

The poll of polls really doesn't tell the whole story, last time there was a really large range in polls, with the ones showing a large CON lead bringing up the average. However it turned out the close ones were correct last time, and quite a few of them accurately predicted the 2-3pt lead. This time the close polls are a bit further away and there are fewer of them.


True but that doesn't change the fact that in the last few days they have 51% of young people telling them they won't vote, and that should account for all the people who registered up to a week ago. On that basis their methodology is accurate, they would have to predict a 49% turnout of 18-24 year olds. Of course it is a very small sample in just one poll, but it seems like the big problem is that young people are actually not wanting to turn out on the level of 2017, and these pollsters may be right.
Sure, but we have had big swings in both certainty to vote and how much of a demographic will vote already from other pollsters and surveys. Conistently swinging higheras we need it to be. I've already said the polling is all over the place. But indeed, the situation seems similar to 2 years ago. Records broken in favour of labour and this time remain parties.

With the poll, it seems kantar is an outlier. The metrics do seem the opposite of what they stated.
 

Dirtyshubb

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,575
Hopefully trumps lies about not wanting the NHS won't work for those who would defend the tories no matter what. Especially with stuff like this immediately floating about.
 

CampFreddie

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,112
Was it Kantar that had like a 90%+ turnout for 65+, way more than the 2017 election, but then had 18-24 turnout at half of 2017?
Not really. The viral tweet saying "LOL they used 90% turnout" didn't correct for survey weighting and got the wrong answer (it was NOT assuming 90% turnout for 65+) and in their haste to deny any bad polls, no-one bothered to check the calculations.

However, IIRC the actual turnout used was still a little high for pensioners (low 80's, I think) and a bit low for millennials.

I wonder what will happen if we do get a hung parliament. We'll probably end up back at the polls before long and I don't know if Tories or Labour voters will have more "stamina" as we end up in a series of elections until one side can create a majority.
LibDems are probably over if that happens, but Labour would have to do a solid deal with the SNP to form a stable government and would probably lack a majority on "English" issues where Scottish MPs don't get a vote. I'd expect some shenanigans to get around that rule (tagging some national reforms onto mostly-English bills so the SNP can vote on it).
 

Xevross

Member
Oct 28, 2017
541
Sure, but we have had big swings in both certainty to vote and how much of a demographic will vote already from other pollsters and surveys. Conistently swinging higheras we need it to be. I've already said the polling is all over the place. But indeed, the situation seems similar to 2 years ago. Records broken in favour of labour and this time remain parties.

With the poll, it seems kantar is an outlier. The metrics do seem the opposite of what they stated.
I also just saw in the kantar poll; only 48% of the under 25 correspondants said they are registered to vote. With 34% saying they aren't and 12% don't know (6% prefer not to say). This seems like a high number not being registered to me, so perhaps they didn't get the best sample of under 25s (they only asked 115).

Hopefully we get a new national yougov poll today to go with the london figures, will be good to see an updated MRP.
 

Koukalaka

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,777
Scotland
Not really. The viral tweet saying "LOL they used 90% turnout" didn't correct for survey weighting and got the wrong answer (it was NOT assuming 90% turnout for 65+) and in their haste to deny any bad polls, no-one bothered to check the calculations.

However, IIRC the actual turnout used was still a little high for pensioners (low 80's, I think) and a bit low for millennials.

I wonder what will happen if we do get a hung parliament. We'll probably end up back at the polls before long and I don't know if Tories or Labour voters will have more "stamina" as we end up in a series of elections until one side can create a majority.
LibDems are probably over if that happens, but Labour would have to do a solid deal with the SNP to form a stable government and would probably lack a majority on "English" issues where Scottish MPs don't get a vote. I'd expect some shenanigans to get around that rule (tagging some national reforms onto mostly-English bills so the SNP can vote on it).
Thanks for the clarification. There's nothing to stop EVEL being reversed, right?
 

ronpontelle

Member
Oct 27, 2017
483
Cant registration be done purely online?
Yeah.

We've registered for postal votes out here in France. I wasn't sure of my status so put a message in with the email and they got back to be the next day saying all was confirmed. Received my postal vote about a week later.

My wife sent her email off the day after I did, and hasn't received a thing. After about a week she sent another email with a copy of the form asking them to confirm receipt, and she's still not received anything - no confirmation email, no human reply, no postal vote... It's shit.
 

Flammable D

Member
Oct 30, 2017
13,338
Yeah we're on holiday from Friday until the day after the election, so while we've both had confirmation, starting to get worried that our postal votes haven't turned up yet. Apparently they can't do anything about missing ones until 5 working days before the election, so given our dates if they don't turn up we're SOOL
 
Oct 26, 2017
978
Yeah we're on holiday from Friday until the day after the election, so while we've both had confirmation, starting to get worried that our postal votes haven't turned up yet. Apparently they can't do anything about missing ones until 5 working days before the election, so given our dates if they don't turn up we're SOOL
Too late to get someone to vote on your behalf?
 

Temascos

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,768
Funnily enough, the vast majority of Ian’s I know are absolute arseholes 🤔
Oy, my brother's called Ian! I'll have you know he's a perfectly nice lad! Grr. :P

On that subject he's a civil servant who hates the Tories, hates Labour, voted Brexit but is socially liberal and concerned about climate change, poverty, etc. I have no idea how to sell anything to him and when I do explain stuff he gets annoyed that I'm "labouring the point" across. I get a bit like Rachel Maddow when it comes to explaining things which can put people off I suppose.
 

Dirtyshubb

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,575
To hold your baby, $40? W.T.F.?!!!

How do they even bill that? What's it for, the labour cost of someone carrying your child 2 feet? The extra 90 seconds you're occupying the room? HOLY SHIT.
I remember finding out about that a little while ago and being shocked at how blatant the money grabbing is in the US health system. Absolutely ridiculous.

Almost feels like extortion 'wanna hold your baby? Give us $40' lol
 
OP
OP
Uzzy

Uzzy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,492

Ooooof. Not what the Tories wanted.
The media coverage over this whole thing has been moronic. They should just ask 'Has the US changed it's policy that foreign drug users should not be subsidised by American citizens paying 'full' price for drugs?' The answer is quite obviously no. So the US will seek to have us pay more for drugs. End of. But rather than look at factual reality, the media just loves to hunt out sound bytes and let everything devolve into a world of 'he said she said' without anyone in the public learning anything.
 

ruttyboy

Member
Oct 29, 2017
458
I remember finding out about that a little while ago and being shocked at how blatant the money grabbing is in the US health system. Absolutely ridiculous.

Almost feels like extortion 'wanna hold your baby? Give us $40' lol
This article clears it up a bit, it's the cost of having another nurse present to watch the baby.

Not that that takes away the madness of the thing, I can't figure out how that invoice ended up at $13k, especially as they've charged for 79 units of 'DELIVERY C SECTION'. Assuming she didn't have 79 kids hiding in there, do they charge by the minute or something?