Patriot Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 So it's happened before....and your point is? BTW, I was around in the 70s. I was around in the 60s. A minorty party enfocing it's will on the majority through the complicity of a smaller party which gained its position in government by deceiving the electorate is hardly a 'mandate.' Plus of course Callaghan's pact with the Lib-Dems in 1977. The Liberals provided Jim Callaghan’s faltering Labour government with a Parliamentary majority in return for certain concessions. My point is in the first line of your post, or does irony pass you by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Not strictly true. Tories didn't get many more votes than Labour, ' Rubbish. The tories got 20% more votes than labour in 2010. To compare, Labour only got 9% more votes than the tories in 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriot Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Apart from Andy Gardener's post, what has this page got to do with the Thread title? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Rubbish. The tories got 20% more votes than labour in 2010. BBC stats [Link] say: CON 36.1% LAB 29.0% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellyman Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 BBC stats [Link] say: CON 36.1% LAB 29.0% OK. The tories got 24.48% more votes than labour in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I thought WeX was referencing the share of the popular vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 BBC stats [Link] say: CON 36.1% LAB 29.0% Rubbish. The tories got 20% more votes than labour in 2010. Note the than Labour part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I thought WeX was referencing the share of the popular vote. I made no such reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 I thought WeX was referencing the share of the popular vote. I think what Wex means is that 64% of voters didn't want a conservative government. But apparently this gives the conservatives a 'mandate.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted May 9, 2012 Share Posted May 9, 2012 The LibDems knew what the Tory's intentions were. They declared themselves diametrically opposed to them on a fundamental level. They then deliberately made themselves the instrument by which those policies they had declared themselves against could be implemented. Say what you like. Two rounds of council elections have clearly shown that people just aren't going to buy the spin and doublespeak around this issue. I do wonder why people like this voted lib dem in the first place. Surely they realised they could never win the general election and hence the best they could ever hope for is a subset of the policies as a part of a coalition combined with whichever party had enough seats to form a coalition? So if they did not want that, they should not have voted for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.