Blackbriar 8,569 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Long may it last torys aren't wanted by most in this country apart from south EnglandThe election results would show differentBeg to differ, Seeker.Conservatives only achieved 36% of the vote BUT just 66% of the electorate actually voted. So, the Tories were voted in by a little over a third of two-thirds of the voters..........hardly a ringing endorsemen Only 66% could be bothered to vote. The Cons got 36% of the votes cast and counted so they got over 50% of the votes pretty comprehensive id say or is my maths wrong ?Yes your maths is wrong. They received 36% of the vote - that's 36%, just over a third in old money. So that means that 2/3 of votes cast were not for the Tories. 4 million UKIP votes = 1 seat. 1 million Green votes = 1 seat. 1.5 million SNP votes = 56 seats. How does that represent 'the will of the people' ?He can any government claim to "govern for one nation" when it was only supported by a third of votes cast, and another third of the electorate didn't bother to express an opinion ? Feck me, thats my education for you., your not a Banker by any chance are you we are talking votes cast and counted not proportional representation. You can't count the votes of the ones who DIDNT vote. They had they right they chose not to exercise that right, they have no reason to complain what ever govt they get. simple. Therefore of the people who voted the country got what it elected. I haven't counted non-voters ! The Tories received 36% of the vote cast and counted. No government has ever received even near 50% of the vote, so how is our electoral system 'democratic' ? I'm running out of ways to explain this.......... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shepp 2,285 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Long may it last torys aren't wanted by most in this country apart from south England The election results would show different Beg to differ, Seeker. Conservatives only achieved 36% of the vote BUT just 66% of the electorate actually voted. So, the Tories were voted in by a little over a third of two-thirds of the voters..........hardly a ringing endorsemen Only 66% could be bothered to vote. The Cons got 36% of the votes cast and counted so they got over 50% of the votes pretty comprehensive id say or is my maths wrong ? Yes your maths is wrong. They received 36% of the vote - that's 36%, just over a third in old money. So that means that 2/3 of votes cast were not for the Tories. 4 million UKIP votes = 1 seat. 1 million Green votes = 1 seat. 1.5 million SNP votes = 56 seats. How does that represent 'the will of the people' ? He can any government claim to "govern for one nation" when it was only supported by a third of votes cast, and another third of the electorate didn't bother to express an opinion ? The system is unfair I agree but as it stands nobody has more of a right to govern us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nothernlite 18,080 Posted May 11, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Oh jesus Quote Link to post Share on other sites
beast 1,884 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Figures can be dressed up how you want. For example, it is true that only about 43% actually voted against the Tories. I agree that the system is unfair when 12% of votes only gets one seat for ukip yet snp get 56 seats with just 4.7%, but what system do we all agree is fair? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
desertbred 5,490 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 proportional representation is a whole new debate, but the present system in its simplest form when the electoral boundaries were redefined and demarcated the electorate got shafted once again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
undisputed 1,664 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Nah rioting is bad everybody should just bend over and take it like a man, after all it's what you voted for We've got food banks popping up everywhere and working people being squeezed for every penny they have while the bankers dance around their banquets laughing and all folk are concerned about is a f***ing war memorial, there's what's wrong with your country right there. Personally I hope the rioting carry's on and we see scenes like the Poll tax riots from the 80's. People need to get angry if there's any hope of change. No change ever came about from folk sitting on their arses....viva the revolution I say You no dead yet! Lol still hanging on...although the Attoss assessment might finish me off. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
beast 1,884 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 proportional representation is a whole new debate, but the present system in its simplest form when the electoral boundaries were redefined and demarcated the electorate got shafted once again. All the parties been doing that for years, they even have a name for it, gerrymandering (google it) 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
undisputed 1,664 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Nah rioting is bad everybody should just bend over and take it like a man, after all it's what you voted for We've got food banks popping up everywhere and working people being squeezed for every penny they have while the bankers dance around their banquets laughing and all folk are concerned about is a f***ing war memorial, there's what's wrong with your country right there. Personally I hope the rioting carry's on and we see scenes like the Poll tax riots from the 80's. People need to get angry if there's any hope of change. No change ever came about from folk sitting on their arses....viva the revolution I say The bankers didnt get where they are by sitting on thier arses. Dont be mad. Your one of the people sitting shoutin i should have this and that. No you should have tried harder to get that higher payin job. No they got where they are by brining a country to its knees, and anything I have I've worked for, Maybe I should ask Cameron for a handout Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Blackbriar 8,569 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 proportional representation is a whole new debate, but the present system in its simplest form when the electoral boundaries were redefined and demarcated the electorate got shafted once again. All the parties been doing that for years, they even have a name for it, gerrymandering (google it) I remember Shirley Porter being done for that, when I lived down that London. Leader of Westminster Council, if memory serves........ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 I appreciate that the current system appears very unfair, especially in light of the recent election results. But realistically how else could it work? Surely with any sort of 'fair' proportional representation we would be forever lumbered with minority governments or coalitions? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bracken boy 584 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Anybody who.thinks this rioting is right is in.my view a fooking bellend... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The Seeker 3,048 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Nah rioting is bad everybody should just bend over and take it like a man, after all it's what you voted for We've got food banks popping up everywhere and working people being squeezed for every penny they have while the bankers dance around their banquets laughing and all folk are concerned about is a f***ing war memorial, there's what's wrong with your country right there. Personally I hope the rioting carry's on and we see scenes like the Poll tax riots from the 80's. People need to get angry if there's any hope of change. No change ever came about from folk sitting on their arses....viva the revolution I say The bankers didnt get where they are by sitting on thier arses. Dont be mad. Your one of the people sitting shoutin i should have this and that. No you should have tried harder to get that higher payin job. No they got where they are by brining a country to its knees, and anything I have I've worked for, Maybe I should ask Cameron for a handout Or just start painting abuse on "f**cking war memorials" sporting a beret and a face mask Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BGD 6,436 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 I appreciate that the current system appears very unfair, especially in light of the recent election results. But realistically how else could it work? Surely with any sort of 'fair' proportional representation we would be forever lumbered with minority governments or coalitions? Plenty of countries manage with always having coalitions, it's a much better way to make everyone's voice heard and with no entrenched political parties it's a lot easier to hold individual MPs to account, IMO. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
WILF 46,786 Posted May 11, 2015 Report Share Posted May 11, 2015 Folk had a chance to change things last f***ing Thursday and their arsehole fell out so they can f**k off back to suburbia and behave themselves !!! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
blackandgreen 84 Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 As an 'ex squaddie' I was sickened by both the rent-a-mob scum rioting, and the damage to a war memorial! There is never an 'appropriate' day to act like scum, but to cause deliberate vandalism to war memorials on V.E day was insensitive, dis-respectful and repulsive! The rioters should have been herded along to Chelsea Barracks and given an almighty kicking by the resident Regiment, the only punishment the Marxist scum may fear. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.