|
Post by mouse on May 12, 2010 11:41:28 GMT
even at parlimentry level....a majority is a majority the fact it would be difficult or nigh impossible to pass bills is irelevent and down to party politics ...a majority is still a majority..the day to day government could still continue on all fronts bar those that needed commons suport to alter say foriegn policy or working hours etc etc .....its the OVERALL majority that is needed not just the simple majority which of course they have...so they do have a majority....though not an OVERALL majority.... i think the conservatives need only 20/30 to have an OVERALL majority
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 12, 2010 12:25:14 GMT
even at parlimentry level....a majority is a majority Yes, a majority is a majority, but Cameron had no majority. a majority is still a majority And no majority is still no majority. You are attempting to equate a majority with the highest number of seats, but they are not the same thing. not just the simple majority which of course they have... You couldn't be more wrong if you changed your name and adress to Mrs Wrong Wrongly 1 Wrong street Wrongness Wrongshire Cameron has not got a simple majority. Merely the highest number of seats.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 12, 2010 13:53:38 GMT
Nice to see England dumping the Labour Party and bringing back the Tories. That's what I would call 'forward progress.' Let's hope our American electorate will dump Obama and the Democrats too. That would be real progress. Too bad we can't bring back GW Bush and Tony Blair. I liked Tony but he was in the wrong party. this is for bush admirer...and this is what the labour party wannted by joining up with a rainbow coalition....good job it failed init.. ;D and perhaps we will get a situation where non of the other national MP,s can vote on English only affairs .....that would be fair to all.... But labour would have sold ANYONE FOR retention of power...that much was patently obvious """English taxpayers face being held to ransom by Scottish and Welsh nationalists in a 'rainbow' coalition to prop up Labour - despite having voted overwhelmingly for the Conservatives. Even though Labour and the Liberal Democrats have now entered talks over a possible deal, they will only get a Commons majority if they ally themselves with minority parties from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But these parties, such as the SNP and Plaid Cymru, have said they will demand their countries be protected from cuts as a price for keeping Labour in No 10. Although last week's election was inconclusive across the UK, in England the Tories gained a massive majority of 62 - and won nearly three million votes from Labour.""""
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on May 12, 2010 14:58:16 GMT
Randon voice says that Cameron has not got a simple majority. Merely the highest number of seats. He too should perhaps consider a move to Wrong Street, on the island McWrong. Cameron, with his new allies, the Liberals, has a healthy overall majority in the House. And with Liberal senior statesmen in his cabinet, the parties are now inextricably linked. This alliance is going to work for a full term, as it is in neither parties interests to let it fail. Cameron has even agreed that when their consciences bother them, Liberal members can abstain on certain voting issues. And Cameron is going to surprise a lot of his critics by becoming a very good PM indeed.
But at least we have got rid of Labour, and that has to be the best news we have had for many a long year!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 12, 2010 17:07:03 GMT
Randon voice says that Cameron has not got a simple majority. Merely the highest number of seats. He too should perhaps consider a move to Wrong Street, on the island McWrong. Cameron, with his new allies, the Liberals, has a healthy overall majority in the House. Ned, I think you miss the point I was making to mouse. Mouse asserted that she could not see why the Tories could simply not go it alone, without any reference to the Lib Dems. She took the view that being the party with the highest number of seats represented a simple majority. This is what she said: yes i fully understand....but they could have formed a government quite legally and within the rules as well you know our system is built on first passed the post.. and they had majority votes and majority mp.s..simples any way its all over for now....till the next time pity there are not more independents Cameron on his own was 20 short of a majority (simple or otherwise), I was merely pointing out that Cameron on his own has no majority. Mouse seems not to get the concept of a majority. (look back on this thread)
|
|
|
Post by jean on May 12, 2010 18:08:02 GMT
She also does not quite get the concept of First Past the Post.
I have explained that at constituency level, a simple majority is all that counts. There's one winner, the rest are nowhere.
That's not true at parliamentary level.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 12, 2010 18:50:06 GMT
gawd....conservatives have more mp,s than labour...fact labour have more seats than libs...fact now which party has the most MP,S..IT ISNT HARD......and that makes it a majority.....not a majority overall but a majority of bums on seats for the conservatives
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 12, 2010 18:53:26 GMT
She also does not quite get the concept of First Past the Post. I have explained that at constituency level, a simple majority is all that counts. There's one winner, the rest are nowhere. That's not true at parliamentary level. majority and overall majority.....my contention is conservatives have a morjority......what they do not have is an overall majority as many labour mp,s are agreed...labour LOST and you can only lose if some one else wins
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 12, 2010 20:18:01 GMT
gawd....conservatives have more mp,s than labour...fact labour have more seats than libs...fact now which party has the most MP,S..IT ISNT HARD......and that makes it a majority.....not a majority overall but a majority of bums on seats for the conservatives Really, you should read a dictionary. A majority is when you have more seats than all of the other Parties put together. They do not have such an arrangement by themselves.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 13, 2010 7:40:01 GMT
random...its not a dictionary that is needed it the need for you to use the correct terminology a majority is as it says a majority ...and the conservatives are the majority political party.... when talking parlimentary the word is OVERALL MAJORITY[the conservatives do NOT have an overall MAJORITY] deffinition of terms IS EVERY THING even labour admits they were beat and saying people voted for a hung parliment is a nonsense...you cannot vote for what is not on offer .
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 13, 2010 9:48:15 GMT
random...its not a dictionary that is needed it the need for you to use the correct terminology a majority is as it says a majority. You need to understand what the term 'majority' actually means. In this context, the term majority means more than half of the seats. Please try and understand this simple concept as it will improve your understanding of this subject. Look at this and try to grasp what is being said –noun,plural-ties. 1.the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total (opposed to minority): the majority of the population. 2.a number of voters or votes, jurors, or others in agreement, constituting more than half of the total number. 3.the amount by which the greater number, as of votes, surpasses the remainder (distinguished from plurality). I cannot think of any more help I can give you here.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 13, 2010 10:09:59 GMT
i understand exactly what it means.....it means in this CONTEXT[parlimentory] an OVERALL majority how ever in party context it means conservatives got a majority over labour
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 13, 2010 10:12:19 GMT
the will of the people gave the conservatives a majority vote and majority of elected....that was the will of the people o mouse no no they didn't no it wasn't it was jade disagreeing with my saying that the conservatives got the majority vote which triggered all this off....she denied the cons got the majority vote[numbers] and thus kerfuffle has carried on...she didnt say anything about an overall majority...just that the cons didnt get the the majority vote..... now can we put this to bed....and agree that the conservatives got the majority number of votes the majority number of seats but not the majority overall which is needed for stable and lasting government that is not to say that the cons could not have demanded government on that small majority of seats..they could...but would not with a small majority have provided effective or lasting government jader disagreed that the will of the people had given the conservatives a majority of votes..trabslated into a majority of mp,s ......when two million voters turn from the ruling party to the oposition...that is the will of the people made manifest...when 100 plus seats extra are given to the oposition that is the will of the peole made clear not enough i agree for an overall majority but a majority non the less am getting tired of this now
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 13, 2010 11:06:55 GMT
how ever in party context it means conservatives got a majority over labour They got MORE seats than Labour NOT a MAJORITY over Labour. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on May 13, 2010 11:18:07 GMT
now can we put this to bed....and agree that the conservatives got the majority number of votes the majority number of seats They got neither a majority of seats, nor did they get a majority of votes! They got more seats than any other party and they got more votes than any single party, but that is not the same thing as much as you would like it to be true. They only get a majority when they join with the Lib Dems, as Neddy rightly points out. They had no mandate to govern in their own right. not enough i agree for an overall majority but a majority non the less NO THEY DID NOT!!!!! WHY IS THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT NOT GETTING THROUGH? THEY HAVE NO MAJORITY SIMPLE OR OTHERWISE!!!!!To get a majority, you need more than half the seats.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 13, 2010 12:55:40 GMT
now can we put this to bed....and agree that the conservatives got the majority number of votes the majority number of seats They got neither a majority of seats, nor did they get a majority of votes! They got more seats than any other party and they got more votes than any single party, . SO YOU VERY RELUCTENTLY AGREE THEY GOT MORE VOTES AND MORE SEATS, than any other party......,thankgawd for that...so we can agree they have the majority of seats and recieved the majority of votes from the electorate.....it then follows they are the majority party which was what jade said they didnt have.......with me so far .....good what they didnt have which was never in contention on my part was a working overall majority strewth that was hard work
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 13, 2010 13:00:47 GMT
to simplyfy matters you said """They got neither a majority of seats, nor did they get a majority of votes! They got more seats than any other party and they got more votes than any single party,"""" if you get more seats..then you have the largest number of seats.... ie a majority of seats if you get more votes you get the largest number of votes....... ie the majority of votes how it is hard to understand i really dont know but tis history now...lets hope more than a runway and id cards are also consigned to history
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on May 13, 2010 13:45:05 GMT
Tiresome! The conservatives got more seats than any other party, but they do not have an overall majority, unless one counts the Con/Lib alliance government. Q.E.D.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 13, 2010 13:55:34 GMT
Tiresome! The conservatives got more seats than any other party, but they do not have an overall majority, unless one counts the Con/Lib alliance government. Q.E.D. exactly.....and that is the end of my part in this discussion....
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 13, 2010 17:13:16 GMT
how ever in party context it means conservatives got a majority over labour They got MORE seats than Labour NOT a MAJORITY over Labour. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING. Did you notice, RV, while you're labouring (no pun intended) the point, ID cards have been abolished?
|
|