law74
Well-Known Member
Have a look at the majorities in the constituencies and you will find it a factually correct statement
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Post Match Thread: Election 2017
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Have a look at the majorities in the constituencies and you will find it a factually correct statement
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,490
Come off it. You know exactly what I mean.If those outright lies support their proprietors' best interests, then I would suggest their job security is pretty robust.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,490
We could all play that game. May was 3,000 away from having a majority of seats then if they'd won seats that were close and went to labour.I think he's referring to this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ter-theresa-may-hung-parliament-a7782581.html
We could all play that game. May was 3,000 away from having a majority of seats then if they'd won seats that were close and went to labour.
True enough, both would be exaggerations for effect. Just as it would be to say that the only reason Corbyn isnt PM is because of Ruth Davidson. Or Dianne Abbott.
That said, Corbyn did come incredibly close to becoming PM.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Kids are always idealists. If someone tells you you can have free education, better public services and no downsides whatsoever, anyone would vote for it, provided they thought it was deliverable. Kids don't remember the days when these things were promised and not delivered; they are not cynical like the rest of us, after decades of real-world underperformance.
Corbyn bought off half of them with his £28,000 bribe of no university fees, and played the soclal media card (for which he should be congratulated, btw) extremely well. The other point is I wonder how many young people were driven to vote after the Brexit result went against their wishes. That may have boosted their numbers too.
But its premature I think to assume that they are now energised and enthuastic hard-left supporters who will turn up in numbers, with the same views, in perpetuity.
Sorry......are you saying that a free education and better public services are not something that society should aspire to?
I'll bet you were against free school meals as well...............
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,490
If you squint a bit.True enough, both would be exaggerations for effect. Just as it would be to say that the only reason Corbyn isnt PM is because of Ruth Davidson. Or Dianne Abbott.
That said, Corbyn did come incredibly close to becoming PM.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,490
They get a free education.Sorry......are you saying that a free education and better public services are not something that society should aspire to?
I'll bet you were against free school meals as well...............
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
Why? Why wasn't it a possibility? Why are you celebrating a defeat and five more years in opposition?
Because Brexit is the poisoned chalice..........May and her clueless wobbly and weak will make a total cock up (in the eyes of the populace) and the Tory party will be dammed forever.
Ifwecouldjust.......
Well-Known Member
They get a free education.
Not at University they don't......as you know ..stop playing games
Gabriel
Well-Known Member
True enough, both would be exaggerations for effect. Just as it would be to say that the only reason Corbyn isnt PM is because of Ruth Davidson. Or Dianne Abbott.
That said, Corbyn did come incredibly close to becoming PM.
Is that in his own right or would it have depended on him forming a progressive alliance?
The reason I ask is because, if it were the latter scenario, I was quite struck by how vehemently the Liberal Democrats ruled out making deals or entering into coalitions with anyone in the event of a hung parliament.
W
W
worsleyweb
Guest
I love the daily mail - doesn't make me evil.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
How about if Theresa May had polled 3000 more votes in 4 seats, she'd have an overall working majority. (Since SF don't sit)I think he's referring to this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ter-theresa-may-hung-parliament-a7782581.html
She was closer to a majority than to not being able to form a coalition.
They might as well have printed, if my aunt had bolloxks she'd be my uncle.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
A factually correct but nevertheless highly misleading.Have a look at the majorities in the constituencies and you will find it a factually correct statement
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
You beat me to it.We could all play that game. May was 3,000 away from having a majority of seats then if they'd won seats that were close and went to labour.
Is that in his own right or would it have depended on him forming a progressive alliance?
The reason I ask is because, if it were the latter scenario, I was quite struck by how vehemently the Liberal Democrats ruled out making deals or entering into coalitions with anyone in the event of a hung parliament.
There wouldnt have been a formal coalition. But I dont think the Lib dems would have voted down a Labour Queen's Speech. Although, in that hypothetical election, Labour probably would have hoped they did. The tories would surely lose more seats if there were an immediate 2nd general election.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
He was miles away from a majority.Is that in his own right or would it have depended on him forming a progressive alliance?
The reason I ask is because, if it were the latter scenario, I was quite struck by how vehemently the Liberal Democrats ruled out making deals or entering into coalitions with anyone in the event of a hung parliament.
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
Not sure what this says but I thought it was reasonably interesting on a slow Saturday morning.
Labour 40% of votes and 40% of seats.
SNP 3% of votes and 5% of seats
LD 7% of votes and 2% of seats
UKIP 2% of votes and 0% of seats
Greens 2% of votes and 0.2% of seats
Conservatives 42% of votes and 49% of seats
DUP 0.9% of votes and 1.5% of seats.
Labour 40% of votes and 40% of seats.
SNP 3% of votes and 5% of seats
LD 7% of votes and 2% of seats
UKIP 2% of votes and 0% of seats
Greens 2% of votes and 0.2% of seats
Conservatives 42% of votes and 49% of seats
DUP 0.9% of votes and 1.5% of seats.
If you squint a bit.
In terms of seats and majorities and what not, yes. In terms of events, had the SNP not pushed for IndyRef2 then Corbyn would most likely be in number 10.
Had the Tories not gained 12 Scottish seats then they'd have a total of 306, which even with the DUP wouldn't have been workable. Labour (262) + SNP (35) + Lib Dem (12) + Green (1) + those Scottish gains (12) give you 322 and a working majority (could even throw Plaid in there too) with Sinn Fein not sitting.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
The tories would surely lose more seats if there were an immediate 2nd general election.
Depends what you mean by immediate. Tomorrow, yes.
But later on, depends who their leader is.
It's pretty obvious everyone hates Theresa May, and she still won. What if they put someone with a bit of charisma in there, run a competent campaign and moderate the manifesto to address the concerns of the less well off?
They'd get more seats not less.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,490
Not at University they don't......as you know ..stop playing games
I'm not playing games. You're the one changing the meaning of education to include higher education (which is free at point of use and only starts being paid back once the former student is earning a good wage).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.