Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Did You Vote LibDem?

Did You Vote LibDem?


  • Total voters
    103
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?

I haven't slagged you, I poked you with my pointy stick. But yes, I was entirely blameless in my voting habit.
 
No, the lib-dems sold out PR, remember?
Danny's the one going on about percentages, though. It seems to be important to him.
No, I've increased the percentage who refused to endorse any of them.
No, because they don't measure % against total voting population, they measure it against the number of votes cast.

By not voting, you increased the percentage of all three major parties. And that means that you increased the percentage of the Tories and the Lib Dems collectively more than you increased the percentage of the non-ConDems.

Sorry, but that's a simple fact. If you want to talk about percentages then you have to play fair and look at the percentages that have actually been discussed. On that basis, you are even more guilty than trev -- at least he decreased the Tory % by as much as he increased the Lib Dem %.
 
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.
That's right. To put it another way -- they need 326 plus another 10% of 326, which is an extra 32.6.
 
Danny's the one going on about percentages, though. It seems to be important to him.
No, because they don't measure % against total voting population, they measure it against the number of votes cast.

By not voting, you increased the percentage of all three major parties. And that means that you increased the percentage of the Tories and the Lib Dems collectively more than you increased the percentage of the non-ConDems.

Sorry, but that's a simple fact. If you want to talk about percentages then you have to play fair and look at the percentages that have actually been discussed. On that basis, you are even more guilty than trev -- at least he decreased the Tory % by as much as he increased the Lib Dem %.

Add in seats, geographic spread and history if you want to play that game - whilst missing the point that this was Clegg's game and all you mugs got used as a battering ram into the tory gates.
 
I've been watching the post-election coverage like the sad nerd I am, but I missed the interviews with the "none of the above" voters. Apart from the odd grunt in a vox pops......"Dunno, they're all the same in't they", I seem to have missed the attention given to those who are widely assumed to be lazy bastards who don't deserve a vote. And I say that with the greatest respect.
 
Add in seats, geographic spread and history if you want to play that game - whilst missing the point that this was Clegg's game and all you mugs got used as a battering ram into the tory gates.

my mates in the pub would find it extroadinary that people are discussing the election in such newsnight fashion.

all the banter i will hear will be about losing jobs.
 
If you are saying that he managed to batter down the Tory gates, does that mean that you are saying that he WILL manage to have an influence on the Tory policy? Or will he have no influence, despite his battering ram?
 
No, because they don't measure % against total voting population, they measure it against the number of votes cast.
That's their problem.

By not voting, you increased the percentage of all three major parties.
There are four main parties in Scotland, although the Tories aren't so main as the others. I didn't endorse any of them.
 
That's right. To put it another way -- they need 326 plus another 10% of 326, which is an extra 32.6.

Suddenly the 57 LibDem MPs aren't quite as important in keeping the Tories in, eh? They could afford to have over half of them 'defect,' and still avoid losing a vote of no confidence. Obviously, there's more to parliament than winning votes of no confidence (getting your legislation passed for instance :)), but even so.
 
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.
That's right. It used to be 1 was enough. Stinks, doesn't it?
 
That's their problem.
No, it's all of our problem if you are to be believed. Because you are saying that they used those percentages as part of their bargaining chips. You can't have this one both ways.

There are four main parties in Scotland, although the Tories aren't so main as the others. I didn't endorse any of them.
And yet, paradoxically, by not voting for any of them, you actually increased all of their share.

You should have picked a loony candidate and voted for him instead. At least that way you would have reduced each of their %, which is what you seem to think is what counted in the negotiation.
 
No, it's all of our problem if you are to be believed. Because you are saying that they used those percentages as part of their bargaining chips. You can't have this one both ways.
They used popular vote. I didn't contribute to the popular vote.
 
They used popular vote. I didn't contribute to the popular vote.
They used the vote as a % of total votes cast.

And you DID contribute to that. If you had voted for someone -- anyone -- then all of the voting percentages would have been different.
 
Locally, I vote for the individual that I genuinely see working to improve services in the local area. She does a really tireless job and does it well. It's thanks to her that little things like traffic light crossings in front of schools have appeared. I see no reason at all why she should not continue in her role.

She's not a Tory, mind.
 
They used the vote as a % of total votes cast.

And you DID contribute to that. If you had voted for someone -- anyone -- then all of the voting percentages would have been different.
Had I voted, I would have been seen by the recipient as endorsing their candidacy. I could not do that.
 
As someone who did not vote, I do think kabbes has a point. If you hate all the rest, vote for the naked bloke at the back wearing nothing but a huge rosette. :)
 
Had I voted, I would have been seen by the recipient as endorsing their candidacy. I could not do that.

That's a completely different point.

If you want to say now that voting percentages are irrelevant then stop trying to hang trev with them.

If you want to say that they are not irrelevant then you need to accept your own culpability just as much.
 
That's a completely different point.

If you want to say now that voting percentages are irrelevant then stop trying to hang trev with them.

If you want to say that they are not irrelevant then you need to accept your own culpability just as much.

In that case you're simply making the argument that people should have voted to a principled abstentionist, which is missing the point somewhat. Clegg would have used that % as battering ram regardless, trev's vote just added more weight to it. Of course others voting against the lib-dems could have altered that % downwards but that's neither here nor there when you're only counting the stuff that did, in fact, add to it, not the stuff that could have diminished it.
 
these losers sour grapes threads are very tidieous and also graceless...

There's a reason Labour didn't get a majority and didn't win.

it'd be far better to focaus on that than why a minor party did a deal with the party who were elected by the majority of the country to run it. (all be it not by the majority of urban or by very much nationally) or is democracy only ok when it's a left wing win for those 'approved' parties...

A lot of bluster and bollocks being talked around urban at present and yet what the fuck did any of you blow hards and posturing politico snobs do to encourage voters not to vote in the tories??

you know like the effort you went to to inform the masses of they soon to be foolish decision?

but it's all the fault of people who used their vote to vote in a group which you don't approve of...

This election was labours to lose not the tories to win and boy did they lose it...

but this too is the lib dems fault innit...

nothing to do with corrupt policies or shitty surveillance nannying state actions or indeed the unelected unrepresentative PM with a persecution complex and anger management issues, the aloof and disconnected parliamentarians or their poacher turned game keep stance on everything ... oh no all the lib dems fault...

have a fucking word with yourselves you bunch of sanctimonious knobs...

no matter who you vote for the government gets in,... meet the new boxx same as the old boss...

oh noez the puppet on this hand is nasty where as the puppet on this hand is good... we'll ignore the intentions of the puppeteer eh....

muppets...
 
these losers sour grapes threads are very tidieous and also graceless...

There's a reason Labour didn't get a majority and didn't win.

it'd be far better to focaus on that than why a minor party did a deal with the party who were elected by the majority of the country to run it. (all be it not by the majority of urban or by very much nationally) or is democracy only ok when it's a left wing win for those 'approved' parties...

A lot of bluster and bollocks being talked around urban at present and yet what the fuck did any of you blow hards and posturing politico snobs do to encourage voters not to vote in the tories??

you know like the effort you went to to inform the masses of they soon to be foolish decision?

but it's all the fault of people who used their vote to vote in a group which you don't approve of...

This election was labours to lose not the tories to win and boy did they lose it...

but this too is the lib dems fault innit...

nothing to do with corrupt policies or shitty surveillance nannying state actions or indeed the unelected unrepresentative PM with a persecution complex and anger management issues, the aloof and disconnected parliamentarians or their poacher turned game keep stance on everything ... oh no all the lib dems fault...

have a fucking word with yourselves you bunch of sanctimonious knobs...

no matter who you vote for the government gets in,... meet the new boxx same as the old boss...

oh noez the puppet on this hand is nasty where as the puppet on this hand is good... we'll ignore the intentions of the puppeteer eh....

muppets...

That's not true.

Louis MacNeice
 
Back
Top Bottom