Categories
Parties – politicalbetting.com
Parties – politicalbetting.com
• See “The Wikipedia Elections Edit War”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVIl_DJl5NU
0
This discussion has been closed.
• See “The Wikipedia Elections Edit War”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVIl_DJl5NU
Comments
https://x.com/drjennings/status/1798354614305329165?s=19
Thank-you for the header, which I have retitled:
"Who's Who in the Political Party Zoo?"
https://youtu.be/ZOLpCWlsCjw?t=9
Or even better, The Count from Sesame Street:
https://youtu.be/2AoxCkySv34?t=8
@joelwilliams74
@VerianGroup
. An 18 point Labour lead.
Lab 41
Con 23
Lib Dems 12
Reform 9
Greens 8
SNP 3
Seems high for LLG, and low for ConRef.
Despite our various current partisan leanings and getting hot under the collar, it’s the best political discussion site around.
Problem is Rishi isn't John Major he's Iain Duncan Smith...
This article was written because of the European Parliament elections, due to start tomorrow. Ladbrokes priced it up using the political groups of the European Parliament, which is stupid because they often change their name after the election. I think they should have used the political parties at the European level instead.
That spark of irritation coincided with the YouTube discussion in the header and the discussion on PB about Mussolini's beginning, in which he used a list, and - bang - the article appeared.
I want political betting to expand beyond its Anglosphere/European limits, but to do that we must familiarise ourselves with things like the party list and the one-party state. Hence this lecture.
Sorry for being an arse, I'm sure there are multiple mistakes and I look forard to you pointing them out...
Unless you want to define Trump, Farage, Orban, etc. as such.
Which I don't, much preferring actual global Sutchism.
A random probability sample is the "gold" standard of survey research. The maths behind a random probability sample are that it satisfies two criteria: every unit in the population has a chance of being selected for the sample; and the probability of selection for any unit in the population is either known or could be calculated. Effectively, everyone in the population has a known and non-zero chance of being selected.
Comment -
I actually can't see how you achieve it....
Will need to read it again to make sense of it all
I don't expect it but if there is a Tory gain in England my pick is Cramlington and Killingworth. This election will disguise it but there is a long-term trend towards Conservatives in the towns of Northern England, boundary changes have made a Tory gain in GE19 (Blyth Valley) into a notional Labour seat but only by less than 2% and that was despite a sizeable Brexit party vote (7.9%). The incumbent MP for much of the new constituency is standing again, the Labour candidate isn't a councillor or seems to have much of a profile. The polls would have to narrow and the Brexit/Reform vote will have to be squeezed but it doesn't seem completely impossible.
Examples: all our main UK parties not otherwise mentioned in the article.
(As for being an arse, even if you were, that sometimes seems de rigeur on PB.)
I’d forgotten that Blair only stepped up because of Smith’s death.
A dog is considered an XL bully if an adult male is at least 20in at the withers (height at shoulder blades) and a female is 19in. But Hayes says breeders often pair two dogs that are half an inch under the limit, and therefore legal, which can produce a puppy that grows to be half an inch taller, making it an XL bully.
Another reason why the ban has been ineffective is that Defra initially believed there were just 10,000 XL bullies in England and Wales, but the Government’s chief veterinary officer has since clarified there are about 55,000 registered under the new regime with a further 15,000 to 20,000 thought to be unregistered and on the streets illegally.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/05/loopholes-in-xl-bully-ban-leave-public-exposed/
Only out by a factor of 7.
How would you define the Australian Coalition of Liberals and Nationals?
Two distinct parties that have been in coalition for decades. Looking through your list, I don't see them fitting anywhere.
FORARD?
I am absolutely disgusted at this spelling in your post. This entire thread, excellent as it is, should be taken down and consigned to a dustbin because of this below-the-line hideousness. Apologies, sir!
So far Alba have not really troubled the scorers unduly but as disillusionment grows with the SNP it has the potential to bleed votes in that direction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmoS_IVgWIo
"Man admits snatching 24 phones in an hour"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd116nk2p30o
ISTR a story from a while ago in Cambridge, where the arrest of one burglar reduced the burglaries in the area of the city he lived in by a third.
ANew Official Raving Monster Loony - Dumpster United Party (NORML-DUMP).
Lab 40
Con 19
Ref 17
LD 10
Green 7
You must however excuse me for boringly drawing attention to an extraordinary day at the PO Inquiry. Alice Perkins always promised to be an intriguing witness but I would never have guessed it would be her evidence that pulled so many strands together.
She's on again tomorrow, so if you can drag yourself away from the GE I strongly recommend that you catch up on today at the Inquiry and tune in tomorrow for more revelations (mostly unwitting ones) from Mrs Jack Straw.
Hope that helps.
🔴 LAB: 40%
🔵 CON: 19%
🟣 REF: 17%
🟠 LDEM: 10%
🟢 GRN: 7%
2,144 adults online
3 June -4 June
So in some respects the Tories will be relieved that even after that they were still ahead of Reform
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1798386225285312891
I feel so sorry for yougov, getting fresh samples every time can result in rogue polls, but over a sequence should show less movement and prove accurate polling. They are not convincing me with these election polls. Remember whilst Savanta call London Mayor okay, yougovs call was more than 10% wrong, they seem to be playing with their products recipe ever since?
Lab 46%
Con 21%
Ref 15%
Lib Dems 8%
Grn 6%
So Labour massively down, LDems up and Tories have traded 2% with Reform.
But run through electoral calculus and without tactical voting that would give Labour a 330 seat majority
If Reform keep this up there are going to be some fairly outlandish outcomes under our FPTP
But if the next poll shows ***CROSSOVER*** it will be funny as hell.
Pretty horrible polling by somebody.
*I haven't even found evidence for the 9% on the doorsteps. Not close.
Redistributing that more sensibly goes something like:
🔴 LAB: 45%
🔵 CON: 24%
🟠 LDEM: 12%
🟢 GRN: 7%
🟣 REF: 5%
And the Greens won't get 7% either so redistributing them:
🔴 LAB: 46%
🔵 CON: 25%
🟠 LDEM: 12%
🟢 GRN: 5%
🟣 REF: 5%
Looks rather more plausible.
Hmmm...plausible rather than likely.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49626-general-election-2024-how-have-our-methodology-changes-affected-voting-intention
Labour 45% (-1)
Conservative 18% (-3)
Reform UK 18% (+3)
Lib Dem 8% (+0)
Green 6% (+0)
(Parties, huh) Yeah!
(What are they good for?) Absolutely nothing, uhuh.
On topic, interesting read. I’ll have to come back to it. Can I suggest a group which I don’t think you mentioned; the Nationalists. Objective: Independence, but once elected are you Left or Right? Once independence, the primary objective, is attained, the party almost certainly splits, or descends into infighting. See the ANC.
Tories finishing behind the Lib Dems is of course extremely unlikely but far more likely than Reform winning loads of seats.
Intuitively and based on nothing more than a feeling in my bones I'd say the results from the new methodology are the more credible.
I would certainly expect lower Labour and higher LD scores than under the old method.
19% is 7% below the lowest poll in the month before the 1997 General Election.
Anyway, I’ll be interested to see what happens with pollsters who haven’t changed their methodology and in the days after the Farage announcement and first tv debate.
🔴 LAB: 46%
🔵 CON: 25%
🟠 LDEM: 13%
🟢 GRN: 5%
🟣 REF: 5%
The question is really are those Reform voters likely to vote Conservative - and I just don't see it..
Regarding the Australian Coalition of Liberals and Nationals, aka the "Coalition". Yes I think you are right and I am wrong. I attempted to draw a distinction between the more informal US/UK alliances and pacts and the more formal European groups and fraktions, but it didn't really work which is why the CDU/CSU appears twice.
Each article has an expanded version, usually written some months afterwards, where I present a longer version backstage with the errors corrected. I'll include that there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_(Australia)
It’s perfectly straightforward, polling firms are murmuring so they personally stand less chance of being eaten by the free election owls (though I prefer goats for votes). yougov idea of murmuring is report lower Lab share than anyone and a Ref share so high no one on earth believes. Not even visitors to the planet.
The answer is it doesn’t make sense.
Weird.
Where are those extra Lib Dem voters?
Scattered uniformly, quite good news for the Conservatives and bad for Labour.
In the right places, very very bad indeed.
See 1997.
But the seat isn't the successor to Blyth Valley at all. It's about half of it (Cramlington), although the more Tory half.
The rest of it (more than half) isn't even town. It's from strongly Labour N Tyneside, and Newcastle.
https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote