Each MP has more support locally than any other individual candidate, not than the others collectively (in most cases), that is a minority rule, how can you claim otherwise.
Poll: *** 2010 General Election Result & Discussion ***
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
If one party can gain more than 50% of the vote of the electorate in a PR system, then they would certainly have garnered enough support to claim a mandate and rule as a single party, it's just pretty unlikely.Therefore you are proposing that we should do away with parties as you do not think it is fair for one party to win.
More than 50% of the populace didn't vote for a conservative minorty government, so no, we didn't vote for it.We did vote for a Conservative minority government
It certainly is not a fallacy. Inflation is at what? 3.5%? Certainly not out of control like all the doom and gloomers have constantly been predicting for the last 3 years. If the global economic crisis has shown us anything, it's that we need to consume less and produce more, this is now happening. Industrial production in this country has grown at its fastest rate in 8 years, thanks in part to the favourable exchange rate from a weak pound
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/11/industrial-production-what-the-economists-say
Kill yourself please.
Almost 9 million more voted for Con/Lib than Labour.
These statistics are meaningless, but if you're going to use them, why only use the one that says Lab/Lib got more votes? Since you can do the same sum with the other two parties and reach a conclusion that doesn't suit you?
Stop being so retarded and falling for the disgusting Labour spin.
No matter what way you do the sums, the Conservatives won.
If they won a genuine majority of the vote it'd be reasonable; but parties never do.
No matter what way you do the sums, nobody won.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
This is correct. No one party won.
Anyone else feel that this thread is now going around in circles? New people have started posting and are rehashing old arguments. It's all getting a little Zzzzzz for us thread veterans
They still got more votes than the other lot, which means they are MORE preferred than the other lot, they may not have a majority but once you take this to a national scale the imbalances should even out.
The problem with LD is that they have a bit of support everywhere, but not a lot anywhere. The Tories have lots of support in England
Rubbish, that is only true if the electorate are stupid. I voted based on the local candidate after having a choice of a UKIP woman who was a moron (despite me agreeing more with UKIP policies) and a Tory guy who came across pretty well.
Didn't matter in the end, Tories had no chance here anyway.
Last edited:
Rubbish. Whatever way you do the sums the conservatives didn't win. They failed to get a majority. They failed to meet the very low target that our electoral system hands over the keys of power at.
The point of the 4 million more votes for Lib/Lab is not that they're the natural government but that it's nonsense to say that a minority conservative government has more mandate to rule.
This is correct. No one party won.
Anyone else feel that this thread is now going around in circles? New people have started posting and are rehashing old arguments. It's all getting a little Zzzzzz for us thread veterans
It is because we are stuck in a holding pattern until the party that came third decide what our government is going to look like.
Exactly.
EVEN MORE people voted for LD + Lab + Tory coalition, should we have that instead?
How about LD + Lab + Con + PC + DUP + SNP + Green coalition, that would have EVEN more votes
Some of you really are stupid 
The Conservatives won more seats and more votes. If you tally things up, they are the winners. They have the most of both, therefore they won.
They did not achieve enough of a win to get 'past the post' and govern alone with a majority, this doesn't mean they lost. Stop believing the Labour lies, it's simple numbers.
As for the constant stream of tripe where Lab/Lib votes are added together and used as justification for them to govern in the name of the majority of the people, why do you only do the maths with those two parties? If you do the same equation with Con/Lib, then the 'mandate to govern' is even greater based on their much higher percentage?
Why use selective maths? I can't believe how effective Labour's spin is.
The Conservatives won more seats and more votes. If you tally things up, they are the winners. They have the most of both, therefore they won.
They did not achieve enough of a win to get 'past the post' and govern alone with a majority, this doesn't mean they lost. Stop believing the Labour lies, it's simple numbers.
As for the constant stream of tripe where Lab/Lib votes are added together and used as justification for them to govern in the name of the majority of the people, why do you only do the maths with those two parties? If you do the same equation with Con/Lib, then the 'mandate to govern' is even greater based on their much higher percentage?
Why use selective maths? I can't believe how effective Labour's spin is.
They did however gain more votes and more seats than any other party. I would suggest that any voting system we eventually adopt (or have forced on us) should recognise such a position. They managed to "win" the greatest number of seats. They managed to "win" the greatest number of votes.
It really is a pointless argument though because it is so easily countered by "More people voted Lib/Con than Lib/Lab". If you want to randomly put party votes together, feel free, however don't try and attach any real meaning to it.
Please learn to read.
I said generally, if you think you're representative of the majority of the UK you're sadly mistaken, whish is probably why the Tories had no chance in your constituency.
No, it isn't. Because it isn't an argument that there should be a Lib/Lab pact, it's a counterargument to the nonsense position that the Conservatives having spectacularly failed to garner the support they needed in the face of a deeply unpopular Prime Minister leading a tarnished party in the teeth of a recession have the absolute right to rule. They don't. They didn't get the mandate they needed. The weight of voters who voted against a Tory party having sole rule shows that.