General Election Is On

[AndrewJB]

Not sure what you mean by that !!

However based on the polls it’s becoming less and less likely the Brexit party will get any.

Looks like the Tories could get a good result based on current polling.

However there is a long way to go.

Boris is not daft like May.

He just promised pensioners a rise, May attacked her biggest supporters in 2017.

He's going to end the benefits freeze, in place since 2016, though not until April 2020. The problem for him I think is that he's only undoing the harm done by his own party. And already there are some in his own part that believe the money should go instead to a tax break "for their own kind"

[Swizzlestick]

Interesting.

[Swizzlestick]

And this one only showing an 8% gap. Might not be the walk in the park for Boris some think.

[Mala591]

I think most leave voters have accepted Johnson's deal as acceptable so no need for the Brexit party.

Lib Dems will start eating into the Labour vote as the campaign continues and I can see them both around 25%

So:

Conservative - 40%
Labour - 25%
Lib Dem - 25%
Others - 10%

Just my own opinion of course...

[Tall Paul]

Correct, if you simply divide 100 by 15%
And then times the result by 15% you will not get 100.

Wat?

[Jakubclaret]

Your comment about iPhones tells me everything I need to know about the type of person you are

Ok fair enough, I should have credited people with more class, call it a Samsung S10+ or a Sony Xperia 1.

[aggi]

Not sure what you mean by that !!

However based on the polls it’s becoming less and less likely the Brexit party will get any.

Looks like the Tories could get a good result based on current polling.

However there is a long way to go.

Boris is not daft like May.

He just promised pensioners a rise, May attacked her biggest supporters in 2017.

Well if you divide 100 by 15% you get 666.66'.

If you times 666.66' by 15% you get 100.

So I'm not sure if your grasp of voting numbers is that great.

[dsr]

I tested your method by using really easy numbers like 'Imagine the Burnley electorate was 100, and imagine there was only two parties... (then 3...) etc' and then increase the Labour or Con (or whatever) leave vote by the required amount, that sort of thing with the aim of exposing the logical flaw. Yet it did seem to consistently work, even though I fully expected it not to. It even seemed to work (mathematically) when you had to make absurd claims like 'Burnley UKIP voters voted 122% leave'.

Yet at the same time dsr's post still leaves me with the feeling something is wrong somewhere. Come on then dsr, what is going wrong here?

What's wrong with turtle's "proof" is that he believes that if you reverse all the steps and you get back to where you started from, that proves that you went in the right direction. I have proved that by turtle's method, 24% of Labour voters voted for something other than Remain or Leave; you have proved that 122% of Brexit supporters voted Leave. Obviously two fallacies that prove the turtle method is wrong.

[dsr]

You're doing it wrong. The way I did it is right, and the way I know it's right is because you can convert the percentages into numbers, do all the working out with numbers, and then convert them back into percentages to get the same result as if you'd just done it my way originally.
I'm sure there is a way where you can work backwards like you tried to do by using subtraction with the lower percentages, but that's much more complex than just doing it the way I did it by calculating based on the Leave vote.

Anyway, how I know i'm right is, like I said, you can just use the figures instead of percentages to calculate the relative increase in Leave vote locally to the Leave vote nationally. Like this. Take the 40,290 turnout from 2017, multiply it by 51.89% gets you 20,906. Now, you can multiply that number by 128.35% to get to 26,833 (26833.4683635) or, like we all did when we were at school because we didn't know how the percentage button worked on our calculators, you can just take the 40,290 figure, divide it by 100 to give you 402.9 and then multiply that by 66.6 to give you 26,833.
A keen eye will notice that that's about 2,000 fewer than the Leave total, however it is based on a 62.3% turnout as opposed to the 67.3% turnout of the referendum. We can get it to 28,988 by going back to our school kids trick of dividing by 62.3 and multiplying by 67.3, to account for turnout and this gives us a difference from the actual Leave total of just 132. And this difference can be explained by rejected ballots and there being a slightly higher electorate in 2017 than in 2016 (by 248). And a couple of votes by roundings.

Or, in short, 40,290 * 0.5189 * 1.2835 * 1.0803 = 28,988

Where...
0.5189 is the leave vote percentage
1.2835 is the percentage increase from national Leave vote share to Burnley Leave vote share
1.0803 is the percentage increase to 2016 turnout level


This was fun. We should do it again some time.

Fake edit: Even though you're wrong, dsr, at least you actually put some effort into trying to explain why you thought I was wrong, unlike other people who just like to pretend they've found a flaw. Or thought they found a flaw and then realised they were wrong but couldn't admit their mistake because, like a moron, they had already mocked me for a mistake i hadn't made.

All that proves is that the leave vote in Burnley divided by the leave vote nationally equals 1.2835.

Take the number of votes cast in Burnley in the 2017 election
Multiply it by the national average Brexit leave percentage
Multiply it by the ratio by which Burnley's leave vote exceeded the national average
adjust for turnout
and you get the total number of votes cast for Leave in the referendum.

Obviously. But introduce the variables of the national average votes spilt by party, and the number of 2017 votes split by party, and of course it doesn't work.

[Lowbankclaret]

Well if you divide 100 by 15% you get 666.66'.

If you times 666.66' by 15% you get 100.

So I'm not sure if your grasp of voting numbers is that great.

Think I was still asleep.

I was supposed to say if you minus 15% of a 100 from 100
And then add 15% of the result, you don’t get 100.

Should have checked before posting, again!!

[Lowbankclaret]

Wat?

Yea blond moment this morning.

[Devils_Advocate]

Think I was still asleep.

I was supposed to say if you minus 15% of a 100 from 100
And then add 15% of the result, you don’t get 100.

Should have checked before posting, again!!

Wait so you are saying that 15% of 100 is not the same as 15% of 85. Wow Pythagoras hasnt got sh*t compared to your genius

[summitclaret]

Not before time imo. The UK was right all along.
https://www.ft.com/content/35b27568-f73 ... b3476c5ff0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[brexit]

UTC the message in claret and blue

[martin_p]

Farage already effectively thrown in the towel I see. He usually selects the seat his party is most likely to do well in to stand as a candidate. He’s not standing at all this election.

[Jakubclaret]

Farage already effectively thrown in the towel I see. He usually selects the seat his party is most likely to do well in to stand as a candidate. He’s not standing at all this election.

He's still a force to be reckoned with & I think the tories will broker a deal with the party eventually with some concessions.

[martin_p]

He's still a force to be reckoned with & I think the tories will broker a deal with the party eventually with some concessions.

Why would he rescue Farage? Not a cat in hells chance.

[tiger76]

Farage already effectively thrown in the towel I see. He usually selects the seat his party is most likely to do well in to stand as a candidate. He’s not standing at all this election.

The reality is if you want brexit in whatever form you'll vote Conservative at this election,a vote for the BP is a waste under FPTP,i'll be surprised if they win any seats,a large % of the BP voters in the European elections will switch to the Conservatives,and surprising as it might seem to some brexit fanatics a good amount will vote Labour,as they traditionally have at GE'S,remember a GE is vastly different to what people rightly or wrongly perceive is a protest vote at a European election,this isn't just about whether brexit transpires and the subsequent aftermath of that,a lot of people will cast their ballot on issues such as the economy,NHS,transport,education,and increasingly nowadays climate change.

The coming weeks will show how many candidates finally make it onto the ballot paper under the BP logo,i'd wager an educated guess it'll be less than a hundred,single-issue parties rarely cut through when the future of the country is at stake,individual by-elections can spring surprises occasionally under the right circumstances,but even at their height in 2015 UKIP only managed 1 MP,and that was Douglas Carswell who had a huge personal vote,and would have likely held that seat under any colours.

Farage's argument that the WA Boris negotiated isn't brexit is a hard sell,even the ERG support the deal as it stands,and i don't see many leavers risking losing brexit altogether,chasing Nigel's preferred outcome,whatever that outcome might be.

[RingoMcCartney]

Ringo once again proving that he can't/doesn't read posts properly.

And you're comparing the "EU nationalist remoaner zealots" to Brexit supporting Mike Ashley.

My, my you really did get yourself in a muddle again didn't you? No wonder you didn't post again.

Under capitalism man exploits man

Under socialism it's the total opposite.

[RingoMcCartney]

The mystic Pole! Never mind that the EU bears absolutely no similarity to Communist Poland, or the Third Reich, and never mind that even old Polish fellas can't see into the future. It's on YouTube, and he fought in the war!

I have the upmost respect for the gentleman.

Why?

Because he knows, exactly, what he's talking about, because he's been through it.

Where as you, as you puff your chest out.......

Compare and contrast.

[RingoMcCartney]

He "would have" fought in the war. Whatever that means.

It means he's a somebody.

You're a nobody. A misguided nobody. But still, a nobody.

[FactualFrank]

It means he's a somebody.

You're a nobody. A misguided nobody. But still, a nobody.

A bit harsh.

[RingoMcCartney]

A bit harsh.

The truth can be.

[Imploding Turtle]

I tested your method by using really easy numbers like 'Imagine the Burnley electorate was 100, and imagine there was only two parties... (then 3...) etc' and then increase the Labour or Con (or whatever) leave vote by the required amount, that sort of thing with the aim of exposing the logical flaw. Yet it did seem to consistently work, even though I fully expected it not to. It even seemed to work (mathematically) when you had to make absurd claims like 'Burnley UKIP voters voted 122% leave'.

Yet at the same time dsr's post still leaves me with the feeling something is wrong somewhere. Come on then dsr, what is going wrong here?

My method works. dsr's still screeching about it not working, across multiple threads now, but he's irrelevant. Subtracting percentages isn't as simple as adding to percentages, which he's trying to imply.
The problem is however I'm unable to prove him wrong, all i can do is prove that my method works, regardless of what starting figures are. You've discovered this for yourself by using hypothetical figures to see if it gets you to the result you would expect, and it does.

I've no more interest in spending time on this. DSR is just trying to derail the discussion and distract from my point that BXP won't have any realistic chance of winning in Burnley unless the Tory's withdraw their candidacy.

[Imploding Turtle]

Correct, if you simply divide 100 by 15%
And then times the result by 15% you will not get 100.

You mean subtract 15% and then add 15%, i assume. And you're correct, subtracting 15% from 100 gives you 85 but adding 15% to 85 only gives you 97.75

A workaround to this that i find easier to understand is to multiply 100 by the result of 1 - 0.15, the 0.15 representing your 15% (because by subtracting 15% you're trying to get 85% of whatever your starting figure is)

100 * (1 - 0.15) = 100 - 15% = 85
or
100 * 0.85 = 100 - 15% = 85

and then to add back what you subtracted the equation would be by simply switching multiply to divide. The starting number would be the number you ended with last time. and then you divide it by whatever the multiplier was last time. So,

85 / (1 - 0.15)
or
85 / 0.85 = 100


If you want the amount your 15% equates to then you can just multiply that starting number by the decimal representation of whatever percent you're after, in this case you'd multiply 100 by 0.15 to get 15.

[Imploding Turtle]

Rolling average poll, possibly the most accurate one.

Showing Tories still going up.
Brexit party going down.

Labour fairly static.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng ... SApp_Other" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trackers are good, i like them. But you need to be aware and pay attention to how they work.
This one, for example, graphs polls going back 14 days, and the reason for the little uptick in the Conservatives line is that they just had a relatively poor poll result drop off the rolling 14-day tracking. You can see this by scrolling down to below the graph and clicking "see more"

You can also see that Labours most recent poll results show an increase in support across their 5 most recent polls compared to any other poll that is currently also a part of their tracker. So when those polls from 21st Oct by YouGov and deltapoll drop off later today and the tracker is updates, you can expect to see Labour's line tick up slightly to 26% i expect. More if new polling is published today and they're maintaining the numbers of their most recent polls (26-29%).

And watch what happens to poll numbers when Corbyn begins campaigning. He's a much better campaigner than a leader. I expect he'll start to eat into that Tory lead just like he did last election.

This election is going to be very close in the end.

[Imploding Turtle]

Nice to mix the cliché up from avacados on toast and coffee from time to time.

And 55" flat screen tellies. Remember that one?

[Imploding Turtle]

What can you do though about it ? People need the work & whilst people are desperate it will continue, outsourcing using agencies takes away the responsibilities towards employment rights, hols & sickness ect, it's been going on for years I've been through various agencies before & eventually found permanent work, what I will say is it can be a good stepping stone & lead to permanent work, if you are a good worker, timekeeper they'll keep you on & won't want to lose you. It's experimental for companies whilst non committal towards confident recruiting.

What you don't seem to understand is that people being made desperate to accept any **** conditions from an employer is by design.

Cutting the social safety net isn't really about saving public funds. It's presented as that because that's how the neoliberals get the public on board, but the real reason is to make the social safety net so inhospitable that getting off of it becomes a matter of survival. The more miserable the government can make your existance on unemployment benefits, or disability benefits, the less the corporations and business owners who our government works for have to offer you to persuade you to work for them.

But if you can be semi-comfortable on benefits and be selective about which company you choose to work for to get off of benefits, then that means the company has to actually compete with other companies for your labour, and companies don't like to have to compete for labour because that drives up wages. And god forbid should businesses have to pay you an actual wage you want to work for as opposed to one you have to work for.

Cutting benefits and services is entirely about making workers more exploitable for private companies. Nothing more.

[AndrewJB]

I have the upmost respect for the gentleman.

Why?

Because he knows, exactly, what he's talking about, because he's been through it.

Where as you, as you puff your chest out.......

Compare and contrast.

If the old chap thinks living in the EU is the same as living in Communist Poland, I’d suggest he’s very confused.

[TheFamilyCat]

Under capitalism man exploits man

Under socialism it's the total opposite.

So Ashley is a capitalistl)? Capitalists are bad? And capitalists want to leave the EU? And your leave friends are those arguing in favour of zero-hour contracts.

Have I got that right?

[TheFamilyCat]

It means he's a somebody.

You're a nobody. A misguided nobody. But still, a nobody.

Ignoring the point and going straight for the insult. Guess that's all you have left now.

So what does "would have" fought in the war mean? Did he or didn't he? Did you assume he did or just plain make that bit up to try to give him a bit more credibility?

[Swizzlestick]

It means he's a somebody.

You're a nobody. A misguided nobody. But still, a nobody.

You’re just a bit of a nasty piece of work really, aren’t you?

That and a pathological liar.

[Lancasterclaret]

Things that Brexiteers need to read this morning

"The life and times of Donald Tusk"

[Devils_Advocate]

The more miserable the government can make your existence on unemployment benefits, or disability benefits, the less the corporations and business owners who our government works for have to offer you to persuade you to work for them.

To be fair this is not the only Tory approach to those on benefits

[AndyClaret]

To be fair this is not the only Tory approach to those on benefits

Stone her !

[Imploding Turtle]

To be fair this is not the only Tory approach to those on benefits

[*img]https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/0d0ec90d ... 0e307638f7[/img]

Yeah, she's sc*m. Her party got 42.2% in her constituency in 2017 versus Labours 49.9%

She won't be winning that seat.

[aggi]

It means he's a somebody.

You're a nobody. A misguided nobody. But still, a nobody.

Given that the majority of UK WW2 veterans voted to stay in the EU I wonder if Ringo values their opinions over his "nobody" opinion.

(Admittedly given Ringo's somewhat loose relationship with the truth I wouldn't be surprised to see him claim that he fought in WW1 and WW2.)

[Jakubclaret]

What you don't seem to understand is that people being made desperate to accept any **** conditions from an employer is by design.

Cutting the social safety net isn't really about saving public funds. It's presented as that because that's how the neoliberals get the public on board, but the real reason is to make the social safety net so inhospitable that getting off of it becomes a matter of survival. The more miserable the government can make your existance on unemployment benefits, or disability benefits, the less the corporations and business owners who our government works for have to offer you to persuade you to work for them.

But if you can be semi-comfortable on benefits and be selective about which company you choose to work for to get off of benefits, then that means the company has to actually compete with other companies for your labour, and companies don't like to have to compete for labour because that drives up wages. And god forbid should businesses have to pay you an actual wage you want to work for as opposed to one you have to work for.

Cutting benefits and services is entirely about making workers more exploitable for private companies. Nothing more.

Some of what you say could perhaps be true, I just think certain people need to manager their finances better & not get in debt, you are in control of your own destiny & live within your means, far too much of people wanting the best of everything which is all good & well if you can afford these things, when I was younger more sacrifices had to be made in order to make things happen, it was a saving generation & now we've got the spending generation, I want, I want, when you should be asking do you really need.

[martin_p]

If the old chap thinks living in the EU is the same as living in Communist Poland, I’d suggest he’s very confused.

Given Wrongo hasn’t provided a link we’ve only his word for what the old chap thinks. Trusting Wrongo makes believing Boris Johnson look sane.

[If it be your will]

You mean subtract 15% and then add 15%, i assume. And you're correct, subtracting 15% from 100 gives you 85 but adding 15% to 85 only gives you 97.75

A workaround to this that i find easier to understand is to multiply 100 by the result of 1 - 0.15, the 0.15 representing your 15% (because by subtracting 15% you're trying to get 85% of whatever your starting figure is)

100 * (1 - 0.15) = 100 - 15% = 85
or
100 * 0.85 = 100 - 15% = 85

and then to add back what you subtracted the equation would be by simply switching multiply to divide. The starting number would be the number you ended with last time. and then you divide it by whatever the multiplier was last time. So,

85 / (1 - 0.15)
or
85 / 0.85 = 100


If you want the amount your 15% equates to then you can just multiply that starting number by the decimal representation of whatever percent you're after, in this case you'd multiply 100 by 0.15 to get 15.

Handy tip when helping someone with GCSE maths:

If you want to Make a percentage change, use the Multiply button. If you want to unDo a percentage change, use the Divide button.

[tiger76]

Yeah, she's sc*m. Her party got 42.2% in her constituency in 2017 versus Labours 49.9%

She won't be winning that seat.

Don't the Conservatives vet their candidates FGS,this could have been a winnable seat for them,Labour's literature writes itself,talk about shooting yourself in the foot,even if she's removed as a candidate the damage has already been done.

[AlargeClaret]

[quote="aggi"]Given that the majority of UK WW2 veterans voted to stay in the EU “

Where on earth did you dig that stat from? While I’m not denying it per se but are you even remotely aware that taking lets say an average age of 21 in 1945 it would put them well into their 90’s ?

[Jakubclaret]

The retired soldiers are renown for being secretive so any stats indicating votes either way will be dubious, the WW2 veterans that did vote out detested any connections with Germany due to the horrors experienced in the war inducing a likely sensible assumption of that being the logical case.

[martin_p]

The retired soldiers are renown for being secretive so any stats indicating votes either way will be dubious, the WW2 veterans that did vote out detested any connections with Germany due to the horrors experienced in the war inducing a likely sensible assumption of that being the logical case.

You’ve managed to surpass even your normal standard of utter nonsense here.

[aggi]

You've got to wonder what is in this report on Russian interference that it's better optics to delay publication rather than release it
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... r-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[aggi]

It was from a paper that LSE did, it's referenced on here somewhere (although probably in the giant Brexit thread).

Agreed that it wouldn't be a big number, it's just weird how often some Brexit voters like to bring up WW2 and veterans in the context of Brexit.

[aggi]

Farage being too scared to run for a seat is probably the death knell for the Brexit party. It's a pretty poor look when you're not even confident enough of gaining one seat and plenty will be made of that.

He probably didn't want to have to hide whilst losing to a man in a dolphin costume again.

[If it be your will]

You've got to wonder what is in this report on Russian interference that it's better optics to delay publication rather than release it
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... r-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But it's always the same. We voted leave because we're thick, we voted leave because we're racist, we voted leave because we didn't understand all the issues, we voted leave as a rebuke to the wrong people in an ill-considered tantrum, and now The Guardian is implying us poor, uneducated saps voted leave because the Russian's told us to.

I wish everyone would just accept we voted leave because we wanted to leave the EU.

[AndyClaret]

Farage being too scared to run for a seat is probably the death knell for the Brexit party. It's a pretty poor look when you're not even confident enough of gaining one seat and plenty will be made of that.

He probably didn't want to have to hide whilst losing to a man in a dolphin costume again.

Bad news for remainers then, they should be hoping the brexit party do really well.

[jrgbfc]

You've got to wonder what is in this report on Russian interference that it's better optics to delay publication rather than release it
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... r-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure it's just a coincidence the Tories are delaying it until after the election.