Snap UK General Election

[Mise]

Am I reading this right? A 7% lead only translates to a 12 seat majority? What's the break even point for a hung parliament?

Yeah you read it right, but I`m not sure how they have calculated the numbers. As for the break even point, there`s no definitive point, but it`s probably around 7%. In 2010, the Tories won with a 7 point margin but fell 20 seats short of a majority. In 2015, they won with a 6.5 point margin but got a majority of 12. So... it depends!

 

[really]

A hung parliament - wonderful.

I kind of want the Tories to win as they will get the blame for any Brexit fallout.

Any Brexit benefits will take a while to manifest themselves.

I am off next Friday so I might stay up to watch the results.

 

[Flying Pig]

Am I reading this right? A 7% lead only translates to a 12 seat majority? What's the break even point for a hung parliament?

By conventional wisdom, Labour has a slight edge, because the general flow of population* in this country is from urban (ie, Labour-voting) seats into rural (ie, Tory-voting) seats, which means that Labour will need to win increasingly fewer voters in its target seats as the gap between the boundary-drawing and the election widens. On the other hand, now that UKIP and the Lib Dems have both nearly ceased to exist as electoral forces, and the Tories don't seriously fight in Scotland anyway, you could argue that most Tory seats are naturally safer than most Labour seats, which means that they can get away with convincing only a few people there because there won't be large numbers voting against them.

*This admittedly ignores large movements of people into mostly-urban seats from outside the UK, particularly recently. However, they can't vote, though might provide a bit of 'resistance' - you can imagine that Labour might have to deliver leaflets to three Polish people to be sure of reaching ten British people, for instance.

 

[Arakhor]

Yougov have just released a constituency by constituency poll indicating the Tories are falling short of a majority.

Ashcroft still has them with a sizable majority though, so this should be taken with a grain of salt. Some pollsters are going to be very wrong come June.

Given the distinct shy Tory effect since 2015 (and before), I'll take that with a block of salt, please.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah you read it right, but I`m not sure how they have calculated the numbers. As for the break even point, there`s no definitive point, but it`s probably around 7%. In 2010, the Tories won with a 7 point margin but fell 20 seats short of a majority. In 2015, they won with a 6.5 point margin but got a majority of 12. So... it depends!

Interesting. I was aware that FPTP and how the constituencies vote makes the national average not indicative, but I thought you'd need less than a 5% lead to have a safe majority in parliament.

 

[Mise]

Corbyn to take part in TV debate, tapping into the open goal that Conservatives left for them when they decided to send Amber Rudd to the debate in May`s absence.

To explain the sequence of events:

1. May refuses to go on debate, which made sense at the time as she had nothing to gain and everything to lose from going.
2. Corbyn then said he wouldn`t take part unless May too part. Again, this made sense for the same reason: if he goes, they spend 2 hours slagging off Labour. If he doesn`t, they spend 2 hours slagging off the Tories.
3. May takes a tumble in polls and has a torrid couple of weeks, with a terrible manifesto, idiotic U-turn, and negative reaction from the public over her hands-off, arms-length campaigning.
4. May decides to send Amber Rudd to the debate instead. Why? Who the hell knows. I sure as hell can`t explain this decision. It`s completely idiotic, because...
5. Corbyn will now attend, and everyone is going to slag off the Tories for sending Rudd instead of May. Why is she scared of the public? Why is she scared of debate? Why is she scared of scrutiny?
6. So now May has a choice: either she goes, and it looks like Corbyn is dictating her appearance, and that she`s anxious about Corbyn etc, or she doesn`t go, and she looks like she`s running scared. Either way, this is yet another unforced error by the May campaign.

Also May is kind of crap at TV.

 

[Arakhor]

... and negative reaction from the public over her hands-off, arms-length campaigning.
... Also May is kind of crap at TV.

Even if you ignore the volte-face on having an election in the first place and the staggering incompetence of the handling of the ongoing Brexit fiasco, this is probably exactly why she keeps away from public appearances where possible, which is also probably the main reason she shouldn't be trying to hold down the UK's top job.

 

[Hrothbern]

Corbyn to take part in TV debate, tapping into the open goal that Conservatives left for them when they decided to send Amber Rudd to the debate in May`s absence.

To explain the sequence of events:

1. May refuses to go on debate, which made sense at the time as she had nothing to gain and everything to lose from going.
2. Corbyn then said he wouldn`t take part unless May too part. Again, this made sense for the same reason: if he goes, they spend 2 hours slagging off Labour. If he doesn`t, they spend 2 hours slagging off the Tories.
3. May takes a tumble in polls and has a torrid couple of weeks, with a terrible manifesto, idiotic U-turn, and negative reaction from the public over her hands-off, arms-length campaigning.
4. May decides to send Amber Rudd to the debate instead. Why? Who the hell knows. I sure as hell can`t explain this decision. It`s completely idiotic, because...
5. Corbyn will now attend, and everyone is going to slag off the Tories for sending Rudd instead of May. Why is she scared of the public? Why is she scared of debate? Why is she scared of scrutiny?
6. So now May has a choice: either she goes, and it looks like Corbyn is dictating her appearance, and that she`s anxious about Corbyn etc, or she doesn`t go, and she looks like she`s running scared. Either way, this is yet another unforced error by the May campaign.

Also May is kind of crap at TV.

The more autocratic a politician is
the less debates you can expect

 

[Flying Pig]

Also May is kind of crap at TV.

I think you've just answered 4.

@Arakhor - I'm uncomfortable saying that someone who isn't good on TV is thus unqualified to run the country. There's a problem with politicians being unwilling to communicate with the electorate, but being photogenic is only a very small part of what being PM should be about. There should at least be room for 'capable but unflashy' to come out ahead of 'sounds good, but not much else'. It's quite a remarkable turn that left-leaning people used to be saying that when it was Corbyn vs. Cameron and Farage, but have turned completely around now that he has an opponent he might actually outshine.

 

[Arakhor]

At this point, I would pay good money to see the Conservatives lose the election and not just because they're a terrible party whose policies I oppose.

 

[Kyriakos]

Who is Amber Rudd?

This is a really dumb decision. I can accept even not wanting to have her/her party admit the OBVIOUS, ie that she is scared of public speaking in general (let alone now), but sending some stooge is beyond stupid. I mean, ok, it would be even worse than May doing this if she would have a break-down on air, yet it would be far simpler to just keep refusing to be on tv. Sending a henchman/henchwoman only highlights you are scared.

Oh well, at least she didn't send Ian Duncan Smith

 

[Samson]

Who is Amber Rudd?

Current home secretary. Pretty forgettable individual, to me at least.

 

[Kyriakos]

Current home secretary. Pretty forgettable individual, to me at least.

Have May send Ian - The Psychopath - Duncan Smith

 

[Samson]

Current home secretary. Pretty forgettable individual, to me at least.

And from her wiki page, the only thing she has done other than a minor politicial since 2010 was to lead a failure of a mining operation in Peru and director of tax haven companies in the Bahamas.

 

[Akka]

There should at least be room for 'capable but unflashy' to come out ahead of 'sounds good, but not much else'.

Angela Merkel ?
I mean, I don't really agree with her policies, but she seems capable, she certainly ISN'T photogenic, and she's on the way for a fourth mandate.

 

[Kyriakos]

^"Capable"? Who else created the european union crisis if not primarily her gov and the stupid/criminal stance of not increasing inflation less than 1% and instead having austerity?
She isn't capable; she is Germany's May at best.

 

[SMcM]

Anyone that thinks the Conservatives will lose hasn't been looking at seat breakdowns. So yes, Labour might be on course to win some battleground constituencies which previously it was thought they would lose in. But, Labour is nowhere near close enough to Conservatives for them winning to be likely.

Here are breakdowns from before and after the Labour vote share increase:

Before: https://web.archive.org/web/20170513024342/http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Now: http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

Obviously Amber Rudd in place of Theresa May could be damaging, but current trajectory is still a Conservative majority of at least 50.

^"Capable"? Who else created the european union crisis if not primarily her gov and the stupid/criminal stance of not increasing inflation less than 1% and instead having austerity?
She isn't capable; she is Germany's May at best.

That makes no sense as a comparison other than in terms of austerity. Theresa May is now taking an anti-immigration stance, whereas Merkel has been a champion of immigration. The two leaders really couldn't be more different.

 

[Kyriakos]

(Never mind, forgot who i was talking to).

 

[SMcM]

50 seats majority? Ehm... why? Train-wrecks winning 50 seats majority is rather disgraceful, no?

What an insightful post.

(Never mind, forgot who i was talking to).

You don't even know anything about me you just assume stuff. I think I've repeated numerous times that I'm not a fan of the Tories even if I think Labour is worse.

 

[Mise]

I said 100 seats before and I stick by that. In football, there`s such thing as scoring too early. I think these own goals by May are coming a bit too early for my liking. That being said, Corbyn is doing a good job of capitalising on them and keeping the pressure on. The more May feels under pressure, the more mistakes she seems to make.