blake Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Yeah you say that but I provided some links on here to show the Nazis (Yeah, I know, Godwin drivel) went from around 4% to around 48% in just a couple of years. sorry you are talking complete drivel. Show me the stats. it is sometimes said - by total idiots - that Hitler was democratically elected but it is not true - they were never elected at all and Hitler eventually took power by subverting a flawed democratic process. When Hitler contested the 1932 German presidential election, the German people voted against him by a substantial margin and he lost by a landslide greater than just about every margin any American presidential candidate has ever lost by. the Nazis never received more than 37% of the vote in any fair election. The March 1933 German federal election which took place after Hitler assumed power was not free and fair and doesn't count. And even in that rigged poll he only got 43% and did not get a majority in the Reichstag, which he had burned down the month before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) sorry you are talking complete drivel. Show me the stats. it is sometimes said - by total idiots - that Hitler was democratically elected but it is not true - they were never elected at all and Hitler eventually took power by subverting a flawed democratic process. When Hitler contested the 1932 German presidential election, the German people voted against him by a substantial margin and he lost by a landslide greater than just about every margin any American presidential candidate has ever lost by. the Nazis never received more than 37% of the vote in any fair election. The March 1933 German federal election which took place after Hitler assumed power was not free and fair and doesn't count. And even in that rigged poll he only got 43% and did not get a majority in the Reichstag, which he had burned down the month before. Oh right, how nice of you Edited October 21, 2014 by Mecky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 oh dear me you have no comprehension of the numbers, do you. There is no way that UKIP can possibly muster even half of the Lib Dem seats in parliament at the next election to come third, even if the Lib Dem vote totally collapses, and even if UKIP have a totally brilliant election that surpasses their wildest dreams. Current betting would have the following Lab 307 Con 277 LD 30 UKIP 6 DUP 8 SNP 7 Plaid 3 SDLP 3 Green 3 others 2 Which seems to make up around 646 which allows for halves I expect. In the circumstances it is difficult to imagine any party putting together a convincing government, particularly as the polls tend to move towards the party in power as an election nears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I don't like it when people come out with that 'Hitler was democratically elected' nonsense. It is not true for starters but the reason why they come out with it is because they usually want to defend totalitarian regimes like military dictatorships, by saying that the democracy a coup may have overthrown is rubbish because democracy elected Hitler - when it didn't. ---------- Post added 21-10-2014 at 12:46 ---------- Current betting would have the following Lab 307 Con 277 LD 30 UKIP 6 DUP 8 SNP 7 Plaid 3 SDLP 3 Green 3 that projection (which sounds reasonably plausible to me actually) is only seats, not vote share. the point I was trying to make was that UKIP could easily get more votes nationwide than the Lib Dems do (and thus come 3rd in the vote) but only tally up a handful of seats and come a distant 4th in parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I don't like it when people come out with that 'Hitler was democratically elected' nonsense. It is not true for starters but the reason why they come out with it is because they usually want to defend totalitarian regimes like military dictatorships, by saying that the democracy a coup may have overthrown is rubbish because democracy elected Hitler - when it didn't. ---------- Post added 21-10-2014 at 12:46 ---------- Current betting would have the following Lab 307 Con 277 LD 30 UKIP 6 DUP 8 SNP 7 Plaid 3 SDLP 3 Green 3 that projection (which sounds reasonably plausible to me actually) is only seats, not vote share. the point I was trying to make was that UKIP could easily get more votes nationwide than the Lib Dems do (and thus come 3rd in the vote) but only tally up a handful of seats and come a distant 4th in parliament. I doubt that UKIP will poll more votes than the Lib/Dems as they aren't planning to contest all seats. They don't have the finance and are therefore concentrating resources on seats that they feel offer them a chance. I think so far they have 240 candidates but I don't know how many will stand in the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ladd Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 sorry you are talking complete drivel. Show me the stats. it is sometimes said - by total idiots - that Hitler was democratically elected but it is not true - they were never elected at all and Hitler eventually took power by subverting a flawed democratic process. When Hitler contested the 1932 German presidential election, the German people voted against him by a substantial margin and he lost by a landslide greater than just about every margin any American presidential candidate has ever lost by. the Nazis never received more than 37% of the vote in any fair election. The March 1933 German federal election which took place after Hitler assumed power was not free and fair and doesn't count. And even in that rigged poll he only got 43% and did not get a majority in the Reichstag, which he had burned down the month before. What you say is factually correct, however the history needs to be viewed in context. The gerrymandering was no worse than happens in democracies all the time, minority governments, coalitions etc. That's why first past the post is best. You get a clear majority with a clear policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 What you say is factually correct, however the history needs to be viewed in context. The gerrymandering was no worse than happens in democracies all the time, minority governments, coalitions etc. That's why first past the post is best. You get a clear majority with a clear policy. Well that makes it ok then doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I doubt that UKIP will poll more votes than the Lib/Dems as they aren't planning to contest all seats. . I would imagine that UKIP will contest more than they did in 2010, when it was nearly 500 seats. They might not contest many in Scotland where they have been rumbled, and where everyone sees them for what they are - an English Nationalist party that is even more English Nationalist than the Tories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roosterboost Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) I would imagine that UKIP will contest more than they did in 2010, when it was nearly 500 seats. They might not contest many in Scotland where they have been rumbled, and where everyone sees them for what they are - an English Nationalist party that is even more English Nationalist than the Tories. Actually I was just looking at an opinion poll from Scotland. It seems there have been massive changes since the referendum. I was pretty shocked how much support Labour had lost there with them actually polling in 3rd place behind the Tories. YOUGOV Scotland SNP 41% CONSERVATIVES 20% LABOUR 19% LIBDEMS 9% UKIP 6% GREENS 5% Who'd make best PM? Cameron 31% Miliband 19% Clegg 7% 6:49 AM - 17 Oct 2014 According to their poll it would have SNP up to 19 seats from 6 in 2010. Edited October 21, 2014 by roosterboost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 that John Osborn was even worse than Irvine Patnick. Sheffield Hallam has a tradition of electing especially pompous imbeciles as their MP which has continued, to the present day. ---------- Post added 21-10-2014 at 17:22 ---------- Actually I was just looking at an opinion poll from Scotland. It seems there have been massive changes since the referendum. . their election is not next year 2015, but the year after that 2016. Thery will vote differently in the overall UK election than they will in the Scottish one. I would be totally amazed if the Scottish Tories do overtake Scottish Labour in 2016 but I agree it is not impossible. They have no hope of overtaking them in 2015 in Scotland though, that is for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts