PDA

View Full Version : Exit Polls



Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 09:06 PM
BBC's exit poll shows the Tories getting an incredible 316 seats.

Personally I can only hope to **** it's way out, but if it's even slightly accurate its incredible.

Either way, results will be trickling in soon and if you're one of those people who only watch Eurovision for the scoring tonight is going to be exciting.


BBC exit poll:

Con: 316
Labour: 239
SNP: 58
Lib Dems: 10
PC: 4
UKIP: 2
Greens: 2
Others: 19

YouGov apparently have a vastly different exit poll outcome, at least according Paddy Ashdown, but their website's crashed as Labour voters hit f5 frantically hoping for some kind of good news. I'll post them when my f5 button finally works on there.

taio
07-05-2015, 09:11 PM
Agree if the exit poll is reasonably accurate this is quite a shock. The difference between the Tories and Labour and even more so the catastrophic impact for Lib Dem.

Steve_Harpers_Perm
07-05-2015, 09:13 PM
Surprising if true. Although for the second election no party with an overall majority which says a lot.

footy_le_bordel
07-05-2015, 09:14 PM
the lib dems are the peter principle in action.

looks like they're going to be in gvt again - with 10 seats!

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 09:16 PM
I think 316 would be enough for the Tories to not need to form a coalition this time, they can probably just rely on UKIP and the DUP for confidence votes.

yesTHATironingboard
07-05-2015, 09:20 PM
well it's been the most depressing campaign i can remember so it's only suitable that it has such a depressing outcome.

murdoch and his cronies strike again.

Steve_Harpers_Perm
07-05-2015, 09:20 PM
The You Gov exit poll predicts very different results!

Claret_in_Lowestoft
07-05-2015, 09:20 PM
If that exit poll is correct then Ed Miliband will be waiting for the assassin to strike...

It will be the death knell for Labour in this country! They won't be able to come back from this.

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 09:23 PM
What doesn't add up, and gives me hope that the BBC do have it wrong, is that if the Lib Dems did lose something like 47 seats then where did they go? Labour apparently lost seats too, 19. It wouldn't make much sense that Lib Dem voters punish Clegg for entering into coalition with the Tories and then going and voting Tory instead.

sheffieldturfite
07-05-2015, 09:26 PM
I genuinely hoped that the great British public would see right through Red Ed's campaign, but in all honesty didn't think that would happen due to the Tories negativity. But as I pointed out today, negativity works sadly (I am conservative in nature but couldn't vote for them today).

If true, It seems unequivocal - despite 5 years of Tory led austerity, in England at least, old Labour is dead forever. The public have spoken.

taio
07-05-2015, 09:26 PM
Does all seem a bit odd. So much so it makes you doubt the accuracy of the exit poll this time.

footy_le_bordel
07-05-2015, 09:34 PM
YouGov Exit Poll:
CON - 284
LAB - 263
SNP - 48
LDEM - 31
UKIP - 2
GRN - 1

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 09:34 PM
http://i.gyazo.com/bc098282c6152d16b7082f0b7bdd0f49.png

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 09:37 PM
From YouGov's Twitter account: "YouGov has not done an exit poll. A re-contact survey today simply gave us no reason to change our final numbers from yesterday."

Steve_Harpers_Perm
07-05-2015, 09:45 PM
Whatever the result I imagine there will be a big demand for electoral voting reform from many.

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 09:46 PM
For my liberal brothers and sisters... - view external link (http://tinyurl.com/27se5k8)

footy_le_bordel
07-05-2015, 09:58 PM
1992 exit poll... - view external link (youtu.be/QyvifYlqihA)

taio
07-05-2015, 10:01 PM
Rumour that Ed Balls may have lost his seat. If that turned out to be true that'd be something to smile about.

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 10:04 PM
For the lazy: Exit poll in 92 showed Tories to be around 25 short of a majority, but actually they had a majority of 21.

Fingers crossed, but I'm braced for bad news.

You can follow the freakout on Twitter. - view external link (http://twitter.com/hashtag/ExitPolls?src=tren)

lovebeingaclaret
07-05-2015, 10:11 PM
I'm not religious but if Ed Balls loses his seat I can verify that praying works.

titsoutforthelads2
07-05-2015, 10:20 PM
Looks like the country has seen sense and given Cameron another 5 years to sort out the problems.
Only viable option IMHO

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 10:23 PM
Ha! Birtwistle is almost certainly out in favour of Cooper. So the exit polls do bring at least a little good news.

claretspice
07-05-2015, 10:23 PM
I sincerely hope this exit poll is wrong, and it may be that it is. But I suspect that the real swing factor may be whether UKIP disrupts the Labour vote more than the Tory vote, especially in Yorkshire where UKIP had ambitions and the exit pollsters are implying that Labour haven't done great.

taio
07-05-2015, 10:24 PM
Exit poll Burnley:

Labour 45%
Conservative 20%
Lib dem 17%

That's if I saw it properly.

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 10:27 PM
A Labour source has told BBC's man in Thanet that Nigel Fridge could come 3rd. XD

lovebeingaclaret
07-05-2015, 10:29 PM
Birtwistle being kicked out would be a shame cos he's been an excellent MP for Burnley.

nil_desperandum
07-05-2015, 10:38 PM
"in England at least, old Labour is dead forever."

Except if the exit poll is right Labour will gain about 20 seats in England, won't they?
It's in Scotand - as expected that they will be slaughtered.

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 10:50 PM
Another thing is that if the exit poll is close to accurate then that 45% vote in favour of independence will shoot past 50% when they have another referendum in the next few years, and I don't see the SNP accepting another 5 years of Conservatives without one.

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 10:56 PM
Rumours that Galloway might be losing to Labour. XD

The silver-linings keep coming.

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 11:03 PM
A "Senior Lib Dem" says Danny Alexander has lost his seat.

footy_le_bordel
07-05-2015, 11:08 PM
i'm waiting for a sitting lib dem to lose his deposit never mind his bleedin seat.

XD XD

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 11:17 PM
Here's Farage mocking the Mail and the Sun. Though he doesn't exactly seem eager to stick around for more questions.

I'm also fairly sure the uploader of the clip doesn't understand sarcasm. - view external link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7V0aOJDqhc)

Imploding Turtle
07-05-2015, 11:28 PM
Jeremy Vine has just said that they've done something with this forecast that they didn't do last time and that is that they've attributed outcomes to individual constituencies. So if the exit polls are a ways off then they can probably point to that.

AuntSally
07-05-2015, 11:33 PM
I wonder what Russell Brand is thinking.

http://i59.tinypic.com/2vlthtf.jpg

Rowls
07-05-2015, 11:52 PM
Some reporting on Twitter that the exit poll predicted 1% swing to Labour in Swindon North.

Actual result was a 4.3% swing to Conservatives.

Could be even better for Conservatives & worse for Labour IF this is true.

ColdPieWarmBeer
08-05-2015, 12:09 AM
Assuming the exit poll did indeed show a 1% swing, Rowls, (taking twitter's word for it), I suppose it's also possible to interpret the Swindon North result as suggesting that the exit polls might be off by quite a bit, quite unreliable, rather than just hinting at Con under-representation in the EP's. 3-4 percent in the marginals is quite significant.

Rowls
08-05-2015, 12:12 AM
Predicting the constituencies is a new science, predicting the result is much easier and much more likely to be accurate.

You're very likely clutching at straws. Also, the exit poll could be wrong in either direction. Could be looking at a Conservative majority.

ColdPieWarmBeer
08-05-2015, 12:21 AM
I think it's pretty bloody clear that the Cons will have more seats, just whether they have enough to defend a left block. 316 is astonishing, as is LD's 10, but drop a few from that and the process of forming a govt for any party starts to look like an absolute mess.

Rowls
08-05-2015, 12:24 AM
Exit poll looking more and more like it has underestimated the Conservative vote.

Imploding Turtle
08-05-2015, 12:29 AM
Too few data points to start calling the exit poll even broadly accurate. None of these results yet have been in much doubt. When the results of a few of Labour's top target seats come in then we can start talking about the exit polls 'looking' accurate.

Imploding Turtle
08-05-2015, 12:43 AM
Another angle of the Scottish independence referendum, assuming the exit poll is right and assuming the SNP call another referendum (lot of moving parts in this post) is that last year David Cameron would have almost certainly had to resign if Scotland broke away.

What happens if this possible second referendum passes independence? Would he have to resign after picking up seats?

Rowls
08-05-2015, 01:47 AM
Cameron would go if the Union split. No doubt about it. He'd have gone if he lost the referendum last year.

Scotland will get a big offer. Hopefully "full fiscal autonomy".

The SNP response isn't predictable because they don't want anything logical and they don't even want what is best for Scotland. They just want an independent Scotland whether they cut off their own nose or not.

This is real wait and see territory.

Imploding Turtle
08-05-2015, 01:59 AM
"The SNP response isn't predictable because they don't want anything logical and they don't even want what is best for Scotland. They just want an independent Scotland whether they cut off their own nose or not."

When i call you an idiot, it's because of stupid **** like this.

Rowls
08-05-2015, 02:11 AM
Wait and see.

Wait and see.

They're a party who are actively lambasting Cameron for not spending enough on the NHS yet they are spending less themselves and are refusing to spend money given to them for the NHS, on the NHS!

Labour - I can disagree with honestly because Labour are an honest political party.

The SNP are not. Don't believe me?

Wait and see.

They'll get an offer soon in the next Parliament - they'll have to. Wait for their response.

Imploding Turtle
08-05-2015, 02:43 AM
"They're a party who are actively lambasting Cameron for not spending enough on the NHS yet they are spending less themselves and are refusing to spend money given to them for the NHS, on the NHS!"

You keep saying this yet you aren't citing any kind of source. I imagine it's a newspaper or some other partisan hack so i'd then have to check their source but if you make a claim I know nothing about then how do you expect me to either agree with you or argue against it?

Rowls
08-05-2015, 02:48 AM
Well, y'know, you could have looked it up yourself.

My source: IFS. Daily Record. And many, many others.

However, there are lots and lots of SNP sponsored results cropping up on Google which say the exact opposite of the IFS report.

Funny that.

Wait and see.

SNP won't stand up to proper democratic scrutiny.

Wait and see. - view external link (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/independence-referendum-snp-cut-nhs-4207020)

Rowls
08-05-2015, 03:05 AM
Well, what do you make of it? I'm genuinely interested now.

The fact is, regardless of our differences, we're never likely to convince the other about our respective politics.

But if I could persuade you of anything to do with contemporary British politics it would be that the Nationalist, Socialist SNP party of Scotland are a bunch of shysters.

I mean, why do you imagine a "progressive" "socialist" government would spend less on health than a Conservative government that is having to implement austerity?

The truth is, the don't care about anything other than breaking up the UK. They're easily prepared to risk lives and cut spending IF they think they can blame the UK government and cause a rift of some sort.

They are a bunch of callous chancers.

Imploding Turtle
08-05-2015, 03:07 AM
So you expect me to guess at what you're using as a source? Don't be stupid.

And guess what, your source, a tabloid, is misleading.

The SNP hasn't "chose to spend one per cent less on NHS Scotland" as your source says, what they've done is chosen to protect NHS Scotland less than the NHS in England has been protected.

In real terms over those 6 years it amounts to a cut of 1%, yet your source, and your sources source says nothing about cuts in NHS services. How do you know that NHS Scotland simply isn't better at allocating the funds and running their NHS than we are in England? If NHS Scotland hasn't had to cut services in that period then why is a 1% cut in real terms a problem? - view external link (http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7366)

Rowls
08-05-2015, 03:12 AM
Oh good grief.

You wouldn't believe me if I posted a link telling you that William the Conqueror won the Battle of Hastings.

Just wait until the SNP come under proper political scrutiny in the wider UK media and have to actually justify their many, many failures.

Don't take my word for it.

Wait and see.

Imploding Turtle
08-05-2015, 03:17 AM
I'm still reading it. The analysis is rather wordy but i thought i'd offer a preliminary response.

I have noticed that the research says that more is spend on the NHS in Scotland per person than in the rest of the UK. But that probably isn't important at all, right?

Page 23. - view external link (http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn140.pdf)

Rowls
08-05-2015, 03:23 AM
No, not really. It's not about how much is being spent, it's about them cutting the spending when they didn't have to.

Imploding Turtle
08-05-2015, 03:32 AM
"it's about them cutting the spending when they didn't have to"

Says who? That's not what this report says.

This report says the Scottish budget was cut by 8.4% between 2009-10 and 2015-16 while health spending was only cut 1.2%.

Meanwhile the 'English' budget was cut by 13.0% while the health budget was increased by 4.4%.

And even when you consider this the Scots still spend more per person than England. Scotland simply didn't need to increase their NHS spending because it was already so much better funded than the English health service.

This is why you shouldn't pay attention to tabloids without checking their facts first. And this is also why I demand sources.

Rowls
08-05-2015, 03:38 AM
Me: "it's about them cutting the spending when they didn't have to"

You: "Says who? That's not what this report says."

And then you again, a few pixels later:

"This report says the Scottish ... health spending was only cut 1.2%.

Meanwhile the 'English' budget ... increased by 4.4%."

Response not necessary. It's late. People can just read for themselves and judge for themselves.

Just as they will with the SNP.

Imploding Turtle
08-05-2015, 03:44 AM
You cannot be this stupid.

You said "..they didn't have to". That report doesn't say that they didn't have to.

So I will ask again, says who?

Rowls
08-05-2015, 03:47 AM
No.

It really is late.

I've read your last post four times and I can't fathom any sense out of it. So I'm not replying.

I'll check it again tomorrow and see if it seems any more comprehensible.

Good night, turtle.

Edit - I think I get it now. You're asking me why I'm assuming that the SNP "didn't have to" cut spending on the NHS in Scotland.

The answer is: Because it's a devolved power. They are in charge of setting that budget.

Imploding Turtle
08-05-2015, 04:07 AM
The answer is: Because it's a devolved power. They are in charge of setting that budget.

But then they could also have doubled spending, "because they're a devolved power". That argument holds no water. Perhaps after a few hours sleep you can come up with something better.

Good night o/ I'll be staying up because i'm scared of what my 'dreams' will be.

Rowls
08-05-2015, 04:09 AM
No, I don't think you're making much sense.

Yes - they could have spent more. They did not have to cut health spending.

But they did.

That's what I am saying.

*sigh*