Grendel
Well-Known Member
It would as they’d be the largest party and it would have won the 2005 outright - if the current polls were translated into a result labour need 29% for an overall majority
Again again. That’s not what you said. You said “According to every General Election result in history, it is.” it wouldn’t have won him any of the last 13 for starters.
Well... it's not quite as simple as that either, is it? Labour's was as much because it had such a large majority in seats, to chip away at them needed time. It's much the same reason the SNP suddenly 'appeared' from nowhere - they'd been nudging at the edges for a while. Alliance in early 80s finished second in a hell of a lot of seats, but only had about 20 MPs in the end.Labour would have with 34% and the point still stands the party with that vote would be the government - given you seemed confused about this election being first past the post then it’s a bit rich to try and point score
I wasn't suggesting it would. You said "29-34% is not a majority." and I pointed out it has never been a requirement of any general election to win a 'majority'.Again again. That’s not what you said. You said “According to every General Election result in history, it is.” it wouldn’t have won him any of the last 13 for starters.
Labour would have with 34% and the point still stands the party with that vote would be the government - given you seemed confused about this election being first past the post then it’s a bit rich to try and point score
I wasn't suggesting it would. You said "29-34% is not a majority." and I pointed out it has never been a requirement of any general election to win a 'majority'.
1970 Labour lost with 43.1% of the votes. 1974 Conservatives lost with 37.9% of the votes (also the largest share). 1974 Conservatives lost with 35.8% of votes. 1979 Labour lost with 36.9% of votes. 1992 Labour lost with 34.4% of votes. 2017 Labour lose with 40% of the votes.
It’s not point scoring it’s facts. I gave the link for the last 100 years you narrow the field to the last 50 and they still wouldn’t have won an election with 34% of the votes. I understand first past the post and it’s likely that he will have a higher concentration of votes in certain areas giving him a higher percentage of win in those areas put that doesn’t mean more seats in the U.K. as a whole and that’s what counts. If he did get that percentage of votes the most likely scenario would seem to be a coalition with the Lib Dem’s for either Labour or Conservatives unless some nut case like Boris or Rees-Mogg has become leader of the conservatives and are willing to go into a coalition with the Brexit Party.
I’ve already tried to explain that you need to ignore elections when it was a two party system and the emergence of the SDP meant that the voting pattern shifted
I’ll try again labour would have in 2005 and the Dutchman gave an example of 34% being the highest vote - that would mean that party delivered the prime minister
I wasn't suggesting it would. You said "29-34% is not a majority." and I pointed out it has never been a requirement of any general election to win a 'majority'.
2005 is the exception not the rule. Dutchman said “According to every General Election result in history, it is.” not just the 2005 result in isolation.
1983. Conservatives 42.4% year of the votes, Labour 27.6% of the votes and Alliance 25.4% of the votes.
1987. Conservatives 42.4% of the votes, Labour 30.8% of the votes. Alliance 22.6% of the votes.
You’re losing your own argument here. That’s twice you’ve shifted the goalposts now and each time when you look at the actual facts not the Grendull facts you’re arguing against yourself.
No you just lack the basic intelligence to understand the point.
You do realise the only person now who takes you seriously is a dribbling lunatic from Germany
No you just lack the basic intelligence to understand the point.
You do realise the only person now who takes you seriously is a dribbling lunatic from Germany
Oh dear. Facts can be an inconvenience. If you have to make a point on Grendull facts then you’re not really making a point, you’re writing fantasy.
What the Dutchman said is factually incorrect. I really don’t see what is difficult about this.
They are only facts in your tiny mind though Tony
I’ve quoted and linked those facts. Where’s your facts? All you’ve given is supposition, constantly moving goalposts when the facts don’t fit and insults when I won’t accept the Grendull facts at face value.
Why don’t you back your argument up with some facts? Let’s hear your facts if you’re so convinced you’re correct. It would stand your argument better than just getting angry with me for the audacity to present actual facts.
Incidentally I’ve looked back as far as I could be bothered (150 years) at the popular vote and I can’t see one election that was won with 34% of the vote. Second place is as good as it gets. Even 2005 was 35.2% and you’ve not backed up your supposition that 34% would have won a majority government with anything factual. And you want to accuse others of only having facts in their mind.
Tony the Dutchman made a point that the party with the biggest share forms a government which you ignore - oh and the latest poll has the biggest party at 27% which would get 317 seats
No he didn’t. He said and I quote in full “According to every General Election result in history, it is.” end statement. That simply isn’t reality The reality is actually not one general election has ever been won with that low a percentage of the votes. You suppose 2005 would have been but you’re yet to add any tangible facts beyond your own supposition to your claim. He’s wrong, wrong as wrong can be. Even if you’re right with 2005 he’s still as wrong as wrong can be because it’s one GE in the entire history of GE’s. That falls so short of “every general election in history” I’m not even sure why you’re trying to argue his case. It’s beyond ridiculous.
Bloody hell you need to get out more.
He never goes out of Europe for his holidays
He called one poster “mr international big billy bollocks” - for going to Italy for a week
No you just lack the basic intelligence to understand the point.
You do realise the only person now who takes you seriously is a dribbling lunatic from Germany
Tony the Dutchman made a point that the party with the biggest share forms a government which you ignore - oh and the latest poll has the biggest party at 27% which would get 317 seats
What’s with this desperation not to admit you are wrong? The Dutchman said nothing of the sort, he said that 34% of the vote was sufficient to secure a majority in every general election in history. This is not correct. He is not correct. By you continuing to argue the toss on this, you by de-facto are not correct.
Argue about whether it would be enough to secure a majority now until you are blue in the face. It may well now be the case. It has not been the case in every general election in history.
European Parliament voting intention:
BREX: 26% (+26)
LAB: 22% (-3)
LDEM: 19% (+12)
CON: 12% (-12)
GRN: 10% (+2)
CHUK: 4% (+4)
UKIP: 3% (-24)
via @BMGResearch, 07 - 10 May
Chgs. w/ 2014
Stop Farage parties gaining. Good news. Pity Labour still not committing to stopping the Brexit lunacy. Having Labour MEPs in sufficient numbers could create a Social Democratic majority in the EU. At least this could swing the EP more in line with the original Labour Party aims. To stick to the result of a 3 years ago flawed referendum and deny European social democrats a chance to effect some changes in the EU, is contrary to the interests of working people throughout the EU. Selfish.
The majority of people in the UK did not consider Brexit a cause worth voting for. They stayed at home or voted remain. The status quo actually won. Which is why we are where we are and can’t agree how to leave, or what we actually want.
If Labour committed to what you have said, the Brexit party vote would go even higher.
I asked you to show me where I said anything of the sort. But all you have done is make out that I still have said something to carry on with the same old crap.If you take his words at face value, as you did in your post, I’ll stand by my accusation of naivety.
Couldn't make it up? You do make a lot of stuff up.I couldn’t give a shit mate. I’ve got enough skills to work wherever I want if this country goes tits up.
Just find the endless idiocy pretty hilarious. That lot must piss themselves that they’ve managed to convince so many people they’re “man of the people” or whatever. You couldn’t make it up, bunch of posh boy traders convince a load of white van men they’re on their side.
European Parliament voting intention:
BREX: 26% (+26)
LAB: 22% (-3)
LDEM: 19% (+12)
CON: 12% (-12)
GRN: 10% (+2)
CHUK: 4% (+4)
UKIP: 3% (-24)
via @BMGResearch, 07 - 10 May
Chgs. w/ 2014
Stop Farage parties gaining. Good news. Pity Labour still not committing to stopping the Brexit lunacy. Having Labour MEPs in sufficient numbers could create a Social Democratic majority in the EU. At least this could swing the EP more in line with the original Labour Party aims. To stick to the result of a 3 years ago flawed referendum and deny European social democrats a chance to effect some changes in the EU, is contrary to the interests of working people throughout the EU. Selfish.
The majority of people in the UK did not consider Brexit a cause worth voting for. They stayed at home or voted remain. The status quo actually won. Which is why we are where we are and can’t agree how to leave, or what we actually want.
As would labour
We are moving for lifestyle more than anything else. And will be quite close to Italy so will be popping over frequently.It’s more to do with there being more employment opportunities to be fair than it being easy. The lifestyle over here is on another level, dreadful weather at the moment though but should be up to 30 on a daily basis within a couple of weeks
Shouldn't this be said about remaining as well over a million people more voted leave over remain?The majority of people in the UK did not consider Brexit a cause worth voting for. They stayed at home or voted remain. The status quo actually won. Which is why we are where we are and can’t agree how to leave, or what we actually want.
As would labour
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?