- Thread starter
- #4,121
I meant 5 were minority and 5 were coalition. You are of course correct, all 10 were hung. My typo.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
General Election 2015
- Thread starter Herr Tubthumper
- Start date
I meant 5 were minority and 5 were coalition. You are of course correct, all 10 were hung. My typo.
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Could you post the You Gov poll please ?
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
[MENTION=409]Herr Tubthumper[/MENTION] I've beaten [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] to this
YouGov/Times Poll:
Lab 36%
Con 33%
Ukip 13%
Lib Dem 8%
Green 5%
YouGov/Times Poll:
Lab 36%
Con 33%
Ukip 13%
Lib Dem 8%
Green 5%
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
Its an outlier ��
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,313
hmm. that would seem solid, except that that a look through the wiki list of uk general elections tells me there were 26 governments in 20th century. what the quote tells me is the source is the Guardian, and i infer that a lazy journo has divided 100 by 5. there is no attributed quote to a professor, just a name drop, and misquoted something write or said elsewhere. it looks like a messy business before the war, still only 4 non majority governments. so i count 6 from 26 (actualy, couple of coalitions in there too. i count badly, its messy pre-war)., still not as stable as some would portray. chalk this one up to relying on Guardian... (and wiki)
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #4,127
So, have I got this right? You are using Wikipedia and the back of a fag-packet to discredit a UCL Professor
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,313
So, have I got this right? You are using Wikipedia and the back of a fag-packet to discredit a UCL Professor
not at all, as i point out the Guardian doesnt actualy make any attributed quote. go look for yourself and count the number of governments in 20th century (thats what piqued my inquisition on the quote, i knew there have been more). then work from there. i will happily discredit the Guardian on the basis of a bloke down the pub if they can back it up. i also concede the jist of the point that FPTP hasnt produced the single party majority that is made out, though since the war there has only been two exceptions.
Last edited:
Before the election campaign started, Labour politicians were saying, "The more people see of Ed the more they will like him / warm to him." It seems that the exact opposite is happening.
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,091
Yes, it is. Hence his enthusiasm for public debating.
I respect you having your own opinion but please don't attempt to make it by editing my quote.
ROSM
Well-known member
The polls concerning whether people perceive ed m as prime minister quality seem to indicate he has made significant inroads in peoples perception. Doesn't necessarily mean labour will win though
Kuipers Supporters Club
Well-known member
So, have I got this right? You are using Wikipedia and the back of a fag-packet to discredit a UCL Professor
There were a lot of Hung Parliaments when Ireland was still around for obvious reasons. And one of the 'coalitions' was due to a spilt in the Liberal Party over the Irish issue.
Another two coalitions because of the wars and I would suggest that FPTP since 1945 is a better measure of the result of the electoral system, not since 1900.
Moreover I would argue the extension of the franchise from 1900-1948 means measuring electoral results since the 'first khaki election' isn't the best way to do things.
After 1918 property restrictions were lifted, 40% of women were given the vote as were all men over 21.
Additionally ten years later women's votes became equal to men - and up until 1948 we still have plural voting!
Finally of course it's only from 1969 those older than 18 could vote.
So although the professor is correct in the literal sense, I'd say it was a manipulation of the facts. The Country had changed drastically from 1900-1945, in terms of borders and also with the extension of the right to vote, that IMO it's wrong to include anything before this period.
If we measure from 1918 - this was a coalition Government and 1923 was a hung Parliament. Both still before equality of suffrage in 1928.
1929 produced a Hung Parliament, but in 1931 there was a decisive Conservative victory.
From 1935-1945 there was a coalition due to the War, which isn't the fault of FPTP and shouldn't be included in the statistics.
Since then only in Feb '74 and in 2010 has FPTP failed to produce a majority.
Therefore it could strongly be argued that in the modern era since 1945, FPTP has produced strong electoral results.
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,091
Corrected for you.
that is the theory but the reality is different
the uk like most countries do run structural deficits
and have done for over 400 years
generation after generation's governments have run deficits
there is no paying the stock of debt back
it is not just Greece that can not pay off the stock of debt
nor can UK USA not even Germany
to believe otherwise is to believe the last 400 years have not existed
and remember the uk ran up a larger govt sector debt to GDP ratio
even when there was a gold standard which provided some kind of restraint on sovereign monetary
power.
Monetary sovereign governments do not default
defaults are for countries like Argentina when they borrowed dollars
and their central bank does not have power to create US dollars
or Greece who have joined a currency union and no longer have the backing
of their own central bank.
There was that "joke"left by a labour treasury spokesmen
that the money has run out .
but it hasn't has it
indeed the coalition has been able to run more deficit in 5 years than the previous
13 years under labour.
why hasn't the money run out ?
because treasury spending is an instruction to the nationalized
Bank of England the issue of government bonds to account for
the gap between spending and revenue is just smoke and mirrors
Stumpy Tim
Well-known member
Apologies for the delay in responding as you ask a fair question. My problem isn't about trusting the people to make the right decision, it's more than that. Membership of the EU is a very complicated issue - one that I don't think I know enough about to make a proper decision. I would be in the "In" camp because all the major parties, apart from UKIP, support it and they're paid to understand all the issues. But that's not my main concern.
My problem is that I think an EU referendum wouldn't end up being debated. The very public debate will one on nationalism and immigration. Immigration is one very small part of EU membership, but it will dominate. This worries me hugely as I personally think the atmosphere in the UK will become very toxic & race will play a part. That troubles me greatly, and part of that comes from me being in a mixed race marriage with mixed race children.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Somehow I predicted that [MENTION=36]Titanic[/MENTION] would post that Opinium poll but not the YouGov one. Titanic: predictable: shurely shome mishtake.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
All the opinion poll evidence indicates that the public are warming to Ed, as his personal ratings are rising. Can you provide some evidence for your claim?
Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
Think it is fair to say Ed Miliband is growing into the campaign and proving people wrong whilst Cameron seems to be doing the opposite, a very tetchy and tired display this morning on the Andrew Marr show
- Thread starter
- #4,140
Given his performance this morning it's easy to see why the public are turning away from an angry tetchy Cameron to Ed Miliband.