Did You Vote LibDem?

[cesare]

*pokes trev with pointy stick*

 

[danny la rouge]

Or lib-dem speak for not whooping with joy at their stich up.

Another reason not to whoop with joy at the stitch up was a little snippet I heard on the BBC News: from now on a no confidence motion will need 55% of the Commons, rather than a simple majority, to oust a government. They've raised the bar. That's a nasty little anti-democratic carve-up. What happened to fairness and new politics, Liberals?

 

[trevhagl]

In any practical sense, he no more supported a Tory government than you did, danny.

who did he vote for?

 

[kabbes]

Well, I can't say that I'm against the winding up of trev as a point of principle. Carry on.

 

[butchersapron]

i would bet 90percent of Lib Dem voters are horrified at whats happened. But i feel no guilt at all. My vote doesn't count . I don't live in a marginal, we haven't got a democracy.

HOW MANY MORE TIMES!!

You've had it explained to you twice now how the popular lib-dem vote, regardless of constituency, was used as a bargaining tool by the lib-dems to work out their sordid deal with the tories. That's what you were, a bargaining tool. Clegg and Camerons butler and shoe shiner.

 

[frogwoman]

To be fair danny you didn't vote, and not only that but you encouraged others not to do so!!

 

[trevhagl]

Another reason not to whoop with joy at the stitch up was a little snippet I heard on the BBC News: from now on a no confidence motion will need 55% of the Commons, rather than a simple majority, to oust a government. They've raised the bar. That's a nasty little anti-democratic carve-up. What happened to fairness and new politics, Liberals?

sounds like Cameron has already got Clegg bent over.....

 

[kabbes]

who did he vote for?

He didn't vote for anyone, thus he actually played more of a part in increasing the Tory % than you did.

 

[the button]

To be fair danny you didn't vote, and not only that but you encouraged others not to do so!!

Encouraged successfully in some cases, eh?

 

[frogwoman]

Another reason not to whoop with joy at the stitch up was a little snippet I heard on the BBC News: from now on a no confidence motion will need 55% of the Commons, rather than a simple majority, to oust a government. They've raised the bar. That's a nasty little anti-democratic carve-up. What happened to fairness and new politics, Liberals?

 

[butchersapron]

Another reason not to whoop with joy at the stitch up was a little snippet I heard on the BBC News: from now on a no confidence motion will need 55% of the Commons, rather than a simple majority, to oust a government. They've raised the bar. That's a nasty little anti-democratic carve-up. What happened to fairness and new politics, Liberals?

A very british enabling act -and yes, one fully in line with the lib-dems hardcore commitment to true and proper democracy.

 

[danny la rouge]

But i feel no guilt at all.

How many more times? Until you're more grown up than this.

You wanted to punish Labour? Fine. But to do so you gave your support to a party to said they would, and who have, put the Tories into power.

 

[trevhagl]

You've had it explained to you twice now how the popular lib-dem vote, regardless of constituency, was used a a bargaining tool by the lib-dems to work out their sordid deal the tories. That's what you were, a bargaining tool. Clegg and Camerons butler and shoe shiner.

Fuck me, who woulda thought it?

Cameron - why should we work with you?

Clegg- because Trev Hagl voted against New Labour warmongers/big brother freaks

Cameron - OK it's a deal!

 

[frogwoman]

Encouraged successfully in some cases, eh?

 

[cesare]

Another reason not to whoop with joy at the stitch up was a little snippet I heard on the BBC News: from now on a no confidence motion will need 55% of the Commons, rather than a simple majority, to oust a government. They've raised the bar. That's a nasty little anti-democratic carve-up. What happened to fairness and new politics, Liberals?

I love the way that announce it as a fait accompli.

 

[danny la rouge]

To be fair danny you didn't vote, and not only that but you encouraged others not to do so!!

Correct. I endorsed none of them.

 

[DotCommunist]

in fairness, principled rejection is better than tacit endorsement. I just couldn't help myself, I wanted rid of Potato Head

 

[trevhagl]

How many more times? Until you're more grown up than this.

You wanted to punish Labour? Fine. But to do so you gave your support to a party to said they would, and who have, put the Tories into power.

no support at all - its a marginal. If it was PR then yes you would have a point.

 

[Stibs]

Not voting is surely worse. At least liberals gave Clegg a larger mandate to take leftish policies into this abominatin of a government.

 

[kabbes]

Consider 20 voters.

15 vote, 5 abstain.

Of the 15, 6 vote Tory, 5 vote Labour, 3 vote Lib Dem and 1 votes other. This gives 40%, 33% and 20% for each of the parties.

Now imagine that an abstainer votes "other" instead, so the votes are 6/5/3/2. Now the Tories have 37.5%, 31.25% and 18.75% respectively.

By danny not voting, he has given extra legitimacy to both the Tories AND the Lib Dems.

 

[DotCommunist]

you stibs, are radio rental

 

[danny la rouge]

no support at all - its a marginal. If it was PR then yes you would have a point.

You must have missed all the talk of percentages of the popular vote; they were all at it. Perhaps you had your headphones on?

 

[trevhagl]

You must have missed all the talk of percentages of the popular vote; they were all at it. Perhaps you had your headphones on?

i actually agree with them. PR is the only way to go.

 

[butchersapron]

Not voting is surely worse. At least liberals gave Clegg a larger mandate to take leftish policies into this abominatin of a government.

Bollocks, stole a larger 'mandate' to sell to Cameron you mean. I thought pirates were supposed to be cool?

 

[kabbes]

You must have missed all the talk of percentages of the popular vote; they were all at it. Perhaps you had your headphones on?

By not voting, you increased the percentage for the Lib Dems AND the Tories.

 

[danny la rouge]

By danny not voting, he has given extra legitimacy to both the Tories AND the Lib Dems.

No, I've increased the percentage who refused to endorse any of them.

 

[butchersapron]

Consider 20 voters.

15 vote, 5 abstain.

Of the 15, 6 vote Tory, 5 vote Labour, 3 vote Lib Dem and 1 votes other. This gives 40%, 33% and 20% for each of the parties.

Now imagine that an abstainer votes "other" instead, so the votes are 6/5/3/2. Now the Tories have 37.5%, 31.25% and 18.75% respectively.

By danny not voting, he has given extra legitimacy to both the Tories AND the Lib Dems.

No, the lib-dems sold out PR, remember?

 

[trevhagl]

i think this thread proves that no matter which way you voted, or didn't, you would get the Urban flak.

not heard much about those voting for New Labour aka mass murderers and big brother party? I take it those who slag me off were entirely blameless in their voting habits?

 

[chazegee]

I voted LibDem to upset Butchers, and feel no shame.

But seriously, this is bullshit, what was the alternative, not vote for them and get pure Tory, fucked if I'm feeling ashamed.

 

[the button]

Another reason not to whoop with joy at the stitch up was a little snippet I heard on the BBC News: from now on a no confidence motion will need 55% of the Commons, rather than a simple majority, to oust a government. They've raised the bar. That's a nasty little anti-democratic carve-up. What happened to fairness and new politics, Liberals?

Have I got this right? Under the simple majority rule, you need 326 votes for a vote of no confidence (650 seats -- so half of them plus one). To get a 55% majority would require 358 votes (55% of 650 is 357½, so round up to the nearest whole). So that's an additional 32.*

Fuck me. I hope my maths is out.

* Of course, this doesn't take into account abstentions.