lib are talking to labour please tell me it's not so

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

From my recollection you vote for the party you want in power not the one you don't want so what you are saying is completely wrong.

So there is no "majority" against anyone all the figures show you is who got the most votes, not who voted against anyone.;)

I think by getting my vote, there is implied agreement. By not getting my vote, it is implied that I do not choose them to represent me. Therefore the winning party above is not representative of the nation, as the majority of the nation did not vote for that party to represent them.

moggylover

Really2 wrote: »

From my recollection you vote for the party you want in power not the one you don't want so what you are saying is completely wrong.

So there is no "majority" against anyone all the figures show you is who got the most votes, not who voted against anyone.;)

In essence yes: but that still means that we do not have a single party with a working majority;)

It also still means that a DEMOCRATIC majority is not represented by the Tories (even with the first past the post system) because this would (once again) involve the affluent 1/3rd of the population shafting it to the other 2/3rds (so no change there then:rotfl:)

lemonjelly

moggylover wrote: »

I agree entirely.

So far it has only been in the interests of the rich, the richer and the disgustingly rich and for the labour market it has been a nightmare.

This does need addressing, but I am not sure that any of our parties are strong enough to do so. My own kind of non-racist belief is that we need to have more respect for ALL of the workers across the World, and a much more level playing field for them to compete in before we can afford "open markets", but there would be less money in it then;)

& we wouldn't be able to buy ridiculously cheap clothes from primark....;)

moggylover

lemonjelly wrote: »

I think by getting my vote, there is implied agreement. By not getting my vote, it is implied that I do not choose them to represent me. Therefore the winning party above is not representative of the nation, as the majority of the nation did not vote for that party to represent them.

In a nutshell lemonjelly:D

They really don't like admitting it though:rotfl::rotfl:

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

I think by getting my vote, there is implied agreement. By not getting my vote, it is implied that I do not choose them to represent me. Therefore the winning party above is not representative of the nation, as the majority of the nation did not vote for that party to represent them.

When as any party got over 50% of the nations vote?

But if they are the party with the most votes it has to be recognised the majority of voters for a party wanted them. A vote for another party can not be seen as a vote against another.

Otherwise we could say far more people do not want labour, and even more do not want liberal.

So having Labour or liberal alliance is far worse than anything as far more did not want either.

moggylover

lemonjelly wrote: »

& we wouldn't be able to buy ridiculously cheap clothes from primark....;)

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: I don't, we don't even have one around here:eek::D

What it really does mean though is that they couldn't produce a pair of trainers for £2.00 using children and slave labour in Vietnam, and bring 'em over here to flog for £130.00;)

It was never that the product could not be produced economically in this Country, but that by exploiting people with no ability to negotiate they could such not only our own economy dry, but also those of other nations, whilst standing firmly on the necks of the workers in this country and forcing wages down at the same time;):(

For me, that is why those that vote Tory cannot ever represent any kind of MORAL anything:o

Entertainer

Those who speak of a "progressive majority" cannot just add up the votes of the Labour Party and the LibDems after they have lost an election and presume to second guess what Lib Dem voters actually believe in. It is reckoned by experts that if the Liberals were to merge with Labour that at least a third of their vote would go straight to the Conservatives. It would not automatically go en masse, every last man and woman, to the Labour Liberal Party. I know for a fact that many Liberal voters in the South and South West would not suddenly vote for the party of Ed Balls, Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell.

The only way you could do it with integrity is for Labour and the Liberals to form an alliance or merge before an election and put it to the people on that basis.

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

When as any party got over 50% of the nations vote?

But if they are the party with the most votes it has to be recognised the majority of voters for a party wanted them. A vote for another party can not be seen as a vote against another.

Otherwise we could say far more people do not want labour, and even more do not want liberal.

So having Labour or liberal alliance is far worse than anything as far more did not want either.

I don't disagree with your points Really2. But we allegedly pride ourselves on "majority rule". My point is, if the tories do form a government, the majority have not voted them in.

That in itself should lead us to question the notion of majority rule, as you effectively agree that historically governments have ruled on the basis of minority support. They are therefore not reflective of the views of the nation.

kennyboy66_2

Really2 wrote: »

When as any party got over 50% of the nations vote?

But if they are the party with the most votes it has to be recognised the majority of voters for a party wanted them. A vote for another party can not be seen as a vote against another.

Otherwise we could say far more people do not want labour, and even more do not want liberal.

So having Labour or liberal alliance is far worse than anything as far more did not want either.

1931 - Stanley Baldwin

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

That in itself should lead us to question the notion of majority rule, as you effectively agree that historically governments have ruled on the basis of minority support. They are therefore not reflective of the views of the nation.

Agree, but in the xfactor world we live in why shouldn't the party with the most votes govern?

I would have no problem with it as in the end of the day it would be what the most people wanted when they voted. If they did not really want one party to come in they could then look to vote against a party.

We can't have this kind of thing going on after the next election. Some business leaders rightly pointed out what is best for the economy has now seem to have gone out of the window.

The truth is not everyones views can be accounted for, so that is why voting for a party that is closest to yours is best.
But if another party beats your party, your party should not have a case to govern IMHO.