The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are in a close race to form the official opposition.
Probabilistic seat count: LAB 484 CON 64 LD 61 SNP 10 RFM 7 PC 3 GRN 3
34,558 interviews conducted online and on the telephone. The full survey can be access here > Survation survey
The only poll that matters is on the day. Make sure you go out and vote, don’t assume it’s a foregone conclusion.
Exactly. Other points worth remembering. Tory voters are more likely to be retired or otherwise wealthy enough to spare time.
Whereas, labour voters are more likely to have multiple or 0-hour contract jobs. Meaning the press push, this is a forgone conclusion. It is much more likely to reduce Labour turnout than Tory.
Add younger voters tend to have lower turnout. And the shy Tory history. This may still be a weak labour win, or even a Tory minority win.
Go vote tomorrow. I’d also suggest vote tactically. If in an area where it’s practical. But that is your choice.
As it is, voting Tory. If that is your wish. Please have fun and get very drunk tonight ;)
You’re are quite right of course. Two main weaknesses of these opinions polls, regardless of the methodology are:
-
the outcome is based on the moment the question was asked and;
-
the complex reality of voter behaviour is simplified by assuming that the change in support for each party from one election to the next is the same across all constituencies. Which fails to take into consideration the following:
Regional variations, new candidates and Issues and finally tactical voting.
So yeah in a nutshell these polls are utterly meaningless but in the absence of a crystal ball something is better than nothing, despite the crude nature of the something.
-
Numbers like that and labour will be occupying benches on both sides of the house
Sure, sure.
Do they also know who’s in fact going to go and cat the vote?
and trans people will be fucked either way.
I lived through the Blair government. Some left wing people were upset because he was on the right of the Labour Party, but things did indeed get a lot better in those ten years. Not everything by any stretch of the imagination. But no one expected him to make things better for gay people but not only did the legal situation change but the mood music affected the nation’s morals for the better for a while. It became socially far less acceptable to hate on gay folk. Could happen again, but I get why you might be cynical.
What rights do I have that trans people don’t?
Serious question.
Sounds a lot like right wing we arrest rich and poor for sleeping under the bridge crap.
Back in the 80s when gay men showing affection in public could lead to inciting riot charges. Many anti-gay groups made the same claim that were equal in not being able to kiss other men in public.
It’s a rather pathetic straw man.
Which doesn’t answer my question because trans people aren’t treated the same as gay men were in the 80s. There isn’t the same laws against them, quite the opposite in fact.
If you fail to see the point I was making.
It is because you choose to.
Serious answer then: you won’t be fired for being yourself.
When I had this conversation with a trans mate (who had a fucking awful Daily Heil-reading co-worker with no notion of what was appropriate conversation for the workplace) I said, “hang on a moment, isn’t [being fired over being out] illegal?” He said, “yes, but it doesn’t stop it happening.”
I believed him - he was living it, he had the experience. Conversations with him involved me getting smacked in the face with my own privilege on a regular basis. You have it easy.
Here’s another. You being you isn’t a line of defence if someone decides to murder you on a date.
It’s altogether the wrong question.
Imagine a class who are excited to have a new teacher because the old one was a git and the new one seemed to be not a git, and one of the kids says “I’ll get bullied either way.” If one of the other kids says “What classroom rules do I have that you don’t?” that kid is starting an irrelevant discussion and either doesn’t understand, doesn’t care about, or supports the bullying that the first kid experiences and no adult would be particularly surprised if it turns out that the kid counting rules was in the same friend group as the bullies.
You see, if there’s a rule saying don’t pick on kids who have red hair and you start a conversation about how many rules there are about brown haired kids vs red haired kids, you either don’t understand why that rule exists at all, or you get it perfectly well and want to abolish it.
If you’re complaining that you have fewer rights than someone who has the right to not be discriminated against because they have a protected characteristic under the human rights act, you’re being self absorbed and insensitive at best, and no adult will be surprised if you turn out to have said a lot of very unkind things about trans people in the past.
Removed by mod
That “99% certainty” isn’t aging well.
