Jump to content

The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

Recommended Posts

In the UK the winner usually has the plularity. Some people thought it odd Trump won an election but got fewer votes. It can happen here too. In fact I think it's happened the same number of times in the UK as it has the US. A quirk of both systems.

 

Churchill 1951 I think is one example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Churchill 1951 I think is one example.

 

Ah, but as Unbeliever is so keen to point out: Churchill didn't believe in democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, but as Unbeliever is so keen to point out: Churchill didn't believe in democracy.

 

Liar.

A quick check of the relevant posts will reveal to any interested party that you lied about what Churchill had said about democracy and then tried to weasel out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Churchill 1951 I think is one example.

 

As you know in our system it's the number of seats a party gets not the number of votes cast.

 

In 1951 Churchill got 321 seats but only 48% of the vote.

 

Attlee got 48.8% of the votes but only 295 seats.

 

Brilliant system we have, totally undemocratic but the politicians like it so that's OK.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJyaLEr7PTAhUsCcAKHWw3AVEQFggrMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsresources.net%2Farea%2Fuk%2Fuktable.htm&usg=AFQjCNGNv4hf-zO5zXIArSvrf0OW06H_TA

 

Breakdown of election results from 1945 to the present. No party has formed a government in that time with even 50% of the votes cast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A quick check of the relevant posts will reveal to any interested party

 

There are no interested parties. No-one cares about these sideshows.

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 17:01 ----------

 

Breakdown of election results from 1945 to the present. No party has formed a government in that time with even 50% of the votes cast.

 

Really interesting to see the figures, thanks!

 

So the cons got 36% at the last two elections.

 

Teresa May is spinning this as seeking a mandate to proceed. Yet history suggests she is unlikely to achieve half the vote. So a Conservative win could be viewed as a reduced "mandate" with the support for Brexit slipping away.

 

This playing fast and loose seems like an unwise way to make major structural changes that will affect generations.

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 17:07 ----------

 

The biting irony is that she can't get any more or bigger of a mandate with the EU: she's the British PM already.

 

The only mandate she can improve upon, is relative to the British electorate.

 

But that counts for sod all with the EU27: they're no more obliged to give in to the UK's demands with a PM enjoying a majority of 200 in the Commons, than with a PM enjoying the current majority of 17 in the Commons.

 

On precedent alone (an enormous portion of the public lapping the £350m, halt immigration, <etc.>) I'm confident that the bulk of the UK voting public will be, and stay, completely oblivious to that nuance, and that turkeys will vote for more Xmas indeed.

 

It's really about taking advantage of a large Conservative lead over Labour in the polls. However the Fixed Term Parliaments Act means she's had to fabricate a special reason for calling an election.

 

All I've seen from this government since June is these political games whilst neglecting all the other things that government are meant to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liar.

A quick check of the relevant posts will reveal to any interested party that you lied about what Churchill had said about democracy and then tried to weasel out of it.

 

You are looking at entirely the wrong posts my friend. I suggest that you go back for another read.

I have plagiarised his speeches several times and you keep coming back against his arguments and saying that I don't believe in democracy.

 

Play the ball, not the man: it does not matter who makes the argument. They are his arguments, they are what he believed ergo what you believe is democracy is not what Churchill believed is democracy.

 

As I said, you clearly don't understand the concept.

 

QED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liar.

A quick check of the relevant posts will reveal to any interested party that you lied about what Churchill had said about democracy and then tried to weasel out of it.

 

Your sarcasm detector appears to be broken.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your sarcasm detector appears to be broken.....

 

Actually not. See above.

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 17:36 ----------

 

So the cons got 36% at the last two elections...

36% of the vote, on about 40% turnout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your sarcasm detector appears to be broken.....

 

Yours in fact. He was being genuine.

You really should not defend him. He's unworthy.

 

---------- Post added 20-04-2017 at 17:51 ----------

 

You are looking at entirely the wrong posts my friend. I suggest that you go back for another read.

I have plagiarised his speeches several times and you keep coming back against his arguments and saying that I don't believe in democracy.

 

Play the ball, not the man: it does not matter who makes the argument. They are his arguments, they are what he believed ergo what you believe is democracy is not what Churchill believed is democracy.

 

As I said, you clearly don't understand the concept.

 

QED

 

It's not a new trick. Redefine something and then suggest that your opponents are stupid for not using your definition.

The Emperor has no clothes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yours in fact. He was being genuine.

You really should not defend him. He's unworthy.

 

Yet you are indefensible. Why not address the points that Churchill made, rather than just claiming they are fake democracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet you are indefensible. Why not address the points that Churchill made, rather than just claiming they are fake democracy?

 

I made no such claim.

Yet again you pretend I said something I did not.

Your deceit knows no bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I made no such claim.

Yet again you pretend I said something I did not.

Your deceit knows no bounds.

 

Ah, so you suggest that the words have a different meaning because I said them?

That must be the purest of ad hominem arguments. I salute you for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.