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
The EU: In, out, shake it all about.... (85 Viewers)
- Thread starter jimmyhillsfanclub
- Start date
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
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
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.
(FWIW also where the Lib Dems were suicidle going into bed with the Tories, they had a chance to gain further as an unpopular minority government fell. Now... with an unpopular minority government... nobody trusts them, their vote share is low as are their seats, so they're not in a position to capitalise)
dutchman
Well-Known Member
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'.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
No you said and again I quote you in full “According to every General Election result in history, it is.”
Just put your hands up and admit you were wrong. No shame in that. Especially compared to the charade you’re playing out now.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
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
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You didn’t suggest anything, you made a statement. That statement being “According to every General Election result in history, it is.”
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
Grendel
Well-Known Member
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
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
What the Dutchman said is factually incorrect. I really don’t see what is difficult about this.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
They are only facts in your tiny mind though Tony
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It isn’t - the party with the highest share of the electorate normally has the largest number of seats and forms a government. I’ve already said 29% for labour would form a government outright and 27% is still enough to make it certain they would lead a coalition
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
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
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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.
SIR ERNIE
Well-Known Member
Bloody hell you need to get out more.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
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
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
World traveled I’m afraid. Clearly another Grendull fact.
You are hilarious.
SBAndy
Well-Known Member
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.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
This is not my interpretation of what he said especially as the other figure was 29% that means there is only 37% remaining so by definition 34% was the highest percentage in the scenario
SkyblueBazza
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Why are Labour so high?!? How can anybody know if they're worth voting for or not?!?
Just shows these elections are a farce really.
Just shows these elections are a farce really.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
If Labour committed to what you have said, the Brexit party vote would go even higher.
As would labour
Astute
Well-Known Member
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.
I could see exactly what Farage was up to. I saw what could happen. People like yourself rubbished what I said at the time. Now it has happened you now treat me like a Farage supporter.
The main difference between the two of us on this subject is that I am willing to look further than the end of my nose to see what is and what could happen. I don't go around accusing people just because they say what I don't agree with.
And someone isn't either an idiot or in it for the money just because they want to leave the EU.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Couldn't make it up? You do make a lot of stuff up.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Do you actually believe this rubbish?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Lol clueless
Astute
Well-Known Member
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
You don't need to be rich in the UK to be able to live like a king in other countries. You then also appreciate the better things in life more.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Shouldn't this be said about remaining as well over a million people more voted leave over remain?
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Nowhere near enough to compensate for the losses. Anyone who would be inclined to vote for Change UK or the Lib Dems is not going to switch to Labour if they come out for remain. These people don't give a shit about austerity or inequality, because it does not impact on them. The 'Remainers' that have stuck with Labour tend to see these things as more important.
Labour have everything to lose and nothing to gain by becoming a Remain party.