The Post General Election Thread

[bluethrunthru]

and the latest wheeze is to scrap student support grants in the news today - all in this together ? Fuck off !!

All that will do is effectively prevent the less well off from going into further education - I have one at Uni - would class myself as lower middle income earner and even with support the financial burden is crippling us - I mean crippling too -£150 balance in our life savings kind of crippling.

So at a stroke the poorer don't get into FE - in a pathetic attempt to try and meet an arbitrary immigration target " Call Me Dave"was panicked into imposing on himself they are restricting access from foreign students - Uni's are already saying they need an increase in fees to stay afloat cue fewer universities - that leads to a poorer educated adult population which in turn leads to an economy with low skilled jobs in the majority.

Still never fear the high skill jobs will all be in the South East easily accessible from the North via HS2 -the Northern Powerhouse could be a pretty empty place.

Other than fucking over the low paid making us pay for the deficit is there any joined up thinking going on?

 

[bluethrunthru]

Context my boy, context. Read the post again and then take it in context. Its not hard, im sure you can work it out.

The only politics of envy i see are those who for some reason envy people on welfare. I have no issue with those who work hard, pay their tax and contribute to society. Absolutly no issue at all.

But context. You make the poor work harder by "cutting" welfare.....and you make the rich work harder by "Raising" bonuses. If you can not see the contradicition in that then i may as well give up, close my account and post on rag cafe.

Its ok Rascal some of us get the point............ stick with us !!

 

[Rascal]

Some fucking excellent revisionism.

This was the ONE election Labour should have fucking smashed. Austerity. Double dip. Tuition fees. Bankers.

Two years ago, the Tories were 4/1 to win a majority. The Cookie Monster must have lost a fucking fortune at the bookies (which I think is pretty much his job).

But no, you elected Ed. well, the Unions did. The rest is history.

You may not think it a ringing endorsement for the Tories. But what was it for your mob?

You sound like a scouser trying to take the piss out of City coming second and saying we had a shit season, ignoring quite how shite you were.

Some fucking excellent revisionism

The unions did not elect Ed for about the 1000th time of trying to get it through to your sunburnt addled head.

Labour should have done better i agree, but offering Tory lite was fucking stupid and doomed to fail. Labour has to break from the Neo Liberal concensus and return to Collectivism. It looks likely that will not happen and that the fuckwit Osborne will ruin the country. But hey thats the the majority 30% of the electorate voted for after all.

 

[Damocles]

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9442

Next Friday is the public meeting of the British Polling Council inquiry into the failure of the polls at the 2015 election, at which point I expect we’ll get some insight into what the different polling companies are thinking, though probably not many firm conclusions yet.

In the meantime the British Election Study team have published some thoughts from Jon Mellon about what the BES data could tell us about why the polls were wrong. It doesn’t include any conclusions yet, but goes through a lot of the thought processes and ways of identifying what went wrong, which I suspect may reflect what many of the pollsters are doing behind closed doors.

As yet only the online BES data from during the campaign is available for download, but in time it will be joined by their online recontact survey after the election campaign, their face-to-face survey after the campaign and voter validation data for the people interviewed in the face-to-face survey. The article has some thoughts about what they can learn from the data that’s already available and what can be learnt from the bits that are still to come:

1) The BES campaign data appears to show some movement towards the Tories over the last couple of days, though not one that is beyond the margin of error. This is in contrast with YouGov’s daily polling data, despite them coming from the same panel. This is interesting, but as Jon says, the real proof will be when the BES publish their post-election data, showing if people actually did change their minds from their pre-election answers

2) If you only take people who said they were very likely to vote it would have been more Tory… but that’s very much a “Pope is Catholic” finding. The interesting bit here is what the BES team plan on doing in the future – they are once again going to validate their face-to-face data against the marked electoral register, to see if people who claim they voted genuinely did, and how well people’s stated intention to vote compares to whether they actually did. They are also going to match the online respondents to the electoral registers before and after the new electoral registers, to see if drop off from individual electoral registration was a factor.

3) Sampling and weighting. Jon hasn’t really said anything on the data so far – he’s waiting for the face-to-face probability sample, to compare that to the results from the online polling and see if it is significantly closer to the actual result.

4) Don’t knows. According to Jon the people who said don’t know before the election were a mixed bunch – their attitudes towards the leaders, issues and party id did not point to them being obviously likely to switch to Conservative or Labour. Again, the interesting bit will be to see how they said they ended up voting in the post-election wave.

5) “Shy tories”. Jon makes two interesting points. One is about question order. While the BES campaign data came from YouGov’s panel, its results seemed to show a movement towards the Tories that the main YouGov data didn’t show – in his article Jon presents Peter Kellner’s hypothesis that this may be because of question order. As regular readers will know, the published voting intention polls all religiously ask voting intention first, but the BES actually asks some questions about the most important issues facing the country and party leaders before asking VI. However, Jon also mentions what he judges to be “weak” evidence against “shy Tory” hypothesis – the BES included a grid of questions aimed at identifying people who tended to give socially desirable answers to questions, and Conservatives scored higher, not lower, amongst those people.

I'm a bit more interested in this than the other stuff. Looking forward to the results from the British Polling Council next week.

 

[kas_tippler]

I didn't know the unions elected Odd Ed, learn something new every day!

 

[worsleyweb]

Had my brand new Land Rover stolen yesterday and the police have said they do not have the resources to check the cctv over several hours. The officer was complaining about the level of cuts and saying they are completely overstretched.

I therefore apologise for every single right wing post I have made pre and post election. This would never have happened under labour and cameron is a ****.

Rascal - can we share a homemade soup at the first home game and you can teach me about communism?

 

[Len Rum]

He wants to yes.

Those figures showing the surplus for 2019 were agreed as being well dodgy during the election campaign.
However the point is that this has nothing to do with economics and more to do with wrong footing Labour ( again) particularly during their leadership campaign.

 

[Len Rum]

Had my brand new Land Rover stolen yesterday and the police have said they do not have the resources to check the cctv over several hours. The officer was complaining about the level of cuts and saying they are completely overstretched.

I therefore apologise for every single right wing post I have made pre and post election. This would never have happened under labour and cameron is a ****.

Rascal - can we share a homemade soup at the first home game and you can teach me about communism?

Welcome comrade worsley to the Bluemoon brotherhood of LWNJs.
You have at last seen the light.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Fucking hell I have missed a lot.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Some fucking excellent revisionism.

This was the ONE election Labour should have fucking smashed. Austerity. Double dip. Tuition fees. Bankers.

Two years ago, the Tories were 4/1 to win a majority. The Cookie Monster must have lost a fucking fortune at the bookies (which I think is pretty much his job).

But no, you elected Ed. well, the Unions did. The rest is history.

You may not think it a ringing endorsement for the Tories. But what was it for your mob?

You sound like a scouser trying to take the piss out of City coming second and saying we had a shit season, ignoring quite how shite you were.

Revisionism? - sorry "fucking excellent revisionism" - I love your witty if random use of expletives - it imbues your posts with a real sense of eloquence and perspicacity.
Anyway , which part is a re-writing of the facts?
"One election labour should have smashed . Austerity , double dip , tuition fees , bankers"
The about turn on tuition fees were blamed on the weakness of the libdems, and as a result , their vote collapsed, just as was widely predicted. The other points were all blamed, by Dave and Gideon , on the "previous labour government" for their economic incompetence - a view which appealed to swathes of voters.
The fear of the Labour Party forming a minority government with the SNP dictating policy over their shoulder was again a fearful prediction lapped up by many voters.
The perception of Milliband being an unelectable buffoon with no charisma or policies,but having an embarrassing lump of carved stone, was again a widely held view generally accepted by large numbers of voters.
The libdem collapse was entirely predictable and was entirely predicted as traditional Libdem voters felt betrayed by their own party.
"My mob" as you so elegantly put it ( I am not now and have never been a member of any political party) were poorly led, had policies which generally did not appeal to the majority of voters , and got what they electorally deserved. To use your analogy "they were shite"
With all these political open goals , and armed with the promise of miracle economic recovery , the Tories increased their vote by an amazing 0.8%.
That is not in any way shape or form a ringing endorsement of Tory philosophy or government . This was a victory for a well oiled electoral machine and the most effective negative campaigning ever seen.
If the voters had wanted to show their support for the Tories , with the fertile political ground on which they were standing, and the perceived unelectibility of the Labour Party, and the fear of the Celtic hordes, they would have won the election by a landslide- but they didn't.
Why do think that was?