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

chucky

lemonjelly wrote: »

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.

it's somewhere just over 20% of the voting electorate voted for the tories. that is in no way a majority.

the tory spin doctors on here don't seem to like that statistic (not you btw Really)

moggylover

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 quite agree in some ways. However, the fact remains that with as tiny a notional "majority" as the Tories have they will struggle to govern. Whilst, in other times, I would most have enjoyed watching them wriggle and struggle with a minority Government, it is not (in view of the fragile economic situation) a good time to have such a weak and powerless Government and thus they need to have help to prop up their party within Parliament because they simply do not have a WORKING MAJORITY;)

Tis very interesting though:D

moggylover

chucky wrote: »

it's somewhere just over 20% of the voting electorate voted for the tories. that is in no way a majority.

the tory spin doctors on here don't seem to like that statistic (not you btw Really)

I think you will find that it is actually 36.1% (as votes, not seats) chucky, of those that voted.

Personally I have no interest in the views of those that cannot be @rsed to vote because they had their chance and should have taken it. (With the exception of the small but important number of people undemocratically denied their right to vote in the various !!!!-ups at this election, of course;)).

ninky_2

Really2 wrote: »

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

.

i can't believe you actually wrote this. that has to be the most ridiculous thing i've seen on here for a while. let's decide the election based on the voting system of a tv talent contest. (voting is now closed but you may still be charged...)

moggylover

Really2 wrote: »

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.

As I pointed out earlier, those business leaders got their one vote and it didn't work out how they wanted it to! They should not now be attempting to add further pressure to the pot! That sort of behaviour is disgusting, but typical:(

The economy has not got worse in the last two days despite all the threats and spin that the Shylocks are trying to push in the media (with, or course, lots of help from the media;)) and there is absolutely no reason why it should other than those with more money than decency and loyalty to the Country playing up and throwing their rattles away.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

i can't believe you actually wrote this. that has to be the most ridiculous thing i've seen on here for a while. let's decide the election based on the voting system of a tv talent contest. (voting is now closed but you may still be charged...)

No you muppet, I am saying that is the world we live in! read!:mad:

I am saying I have no problem with the party getting the most votes governing, and have never had in the past either (do you not agree in most cases the party with the most votes has governed?)
The reason why I say that is because I feel that any party with the most votes as obviously lined it's self best with the most people.

But looks like it is all swing back to LIB CON so I will let you stew on that one ninky!!;)

Really2

moggylover wrote: »

The economy has not got worse in the last two days despite all the threats and spin that the Shylocks are trying to push in the media

FTSE down over 2% today can't see any other reason for it other than the election as data out today has been positive.

So from my point of view on this I want a stable government for the economy more than anything else.

mitchaa

This is getting ridiculous now.

Tories and lib dems now in fresh talks. NC is taking the michael.

mitchaa

I wonder if they have agreed and are now just fine tuning their speaches for public announcement?

chucky

moggylover wrote: »

I think you will find that it is actually 36.1% (as votes, not seats) chucky, of those that voted.

no argument there - with a turnout of 65%, that's what the number is only 20% ish

Labour and Lib Dems obviously less.