NationStates Jolt Archive

What exactly does that mean?

I saw a blurb talking about politics between Brown, Labor and the Tories.....

It's only 80% as good as it used to be?

40% Labour
40% Tories
It would seem.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97455564-a20c-11dc-a13b-0000779fd2ac.html

It has really bad eyesight?

Numeracy skills have got so bad that no one can do percentages that add up to one hundred anymore?

It's the split between labour and the tories in the support polls, I should imagine.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97455564-a20c-11dc-a13b-0000779fd2ac.html


From the linky above......
John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, says this matters less to Labour because the electoral map is "biased in its favour". Tony Blair won the 2005 election on just 36 per cent.

The Tories, adds Prof Curtice, could win an overall majority with 40 per cent, but that would depend on the state of the other parties. A clear 45 per cent would give Mr Cameron much more room to relax.
PR really is the way to go.....That 36% gave him a comfortable majority.....Its madness really...

It has really bad eyesight?

40-40 really bad? Surly that is twice as good?

The comment that the electoral map in Britain favours the Labour Party is a surprising comment. I would have expected that it favoured the Conservative Party, simply because the left wing vote is typically split between the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties. Of course it would be very interesting if the Lib Dems were able to increase their vote by another five percentage points in the next election.

deuce

deuce
Dammit, that was the thought in my head as I scrolled through the thread.

Damn you... damn you to <one of those bad places that people harping on about> :mad:

Of course it would be very interesting if the Lib Dems were able to increase their vote by another five percentage points in the next election.

And we'll have another 1983 election where the tories under maggie snatcher got 43% of the vote and 350 MPs, Labour under 'duffel coat' Foot got 27% of the vote and got 210 MPs and Liberal led by whoever was leading them at the time got 25% of the vote and 20 MP's

Woohooo score 1 for democracy

El-Presidente Boris

<<Prefers African democracy, One man one vote Once :eek:

40-40 really bad? Surly that is twice as good?
No...40:40 would be identical to 20:20. Just means that you can see things at 40 feet that a person with average eyesight could see at 40 feet. Twice as good as 20:20 would be 20:10 (or 10:20...I forget which way round it is).

The comment that the electoral map in Britain favours the Labour Party is a surprising comment. I would have expected that it favoured the Conservative Party, simply because the left wing vote is typically split between the Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties. Of course it would be very interesting if the Lib Dems were able to increase their vote by another five percentage points in the next election.

Examples:

Thu 5th July 1945
Labour seats:393 Percentage of seats:61.4% Percentage of vote:47.8%
Conservative/Unionist seats:212 Percentage of seats:33.3% Percentage of vote:39.8%


Thu 7th June 2001
Labour seats :412 Percentage of seats:62.5% Percentage of vote:40.7%
Conservative seats:166 Percentage of seats:25.2% Percentage of vote:31.7%

Thu 5th May 2005:
Labour seats:355 Percentage of seats:55% Percentage of vote:35.2%
Conservative seats:198 Percentage of seats:30.5 Percentage of vote:32.3%

Of course, one might question the unfavourable opinions expressed in the UK over the circumstances of G.W.'s victory over Al given the obvious rampant unfairness exemplified by the British system.

Though to be fair, it's perhaps unsurprising given that the head of state gets the postion by inheritance and they determine who will be the head of government.

Nearly forgot my favourite (which does contradict the thesis of Labour's advantage somewhat):

Thu 25th Oct 1951:
Conservative/Unionist seats:321 Percentage of seats:51.3% Percentage of vote:48.0%

Labour seats:295 Percentage of seats:47.2 Percentage of vote:48.8%

Examples:

Thu 5th July 1945
Labour seats:393 Percentage of seats:61.4% Percentage of vote:47.8%
Conservative/Unionist seats:212 Percentage of seats:33.3% Percentage of vote:39.8%

Not all that surprising; with a 7% gap between the parties, the winner would get a massive number of seats.

Thu 7th June 2001
Labour seats :412 Percentage of seats:62.5% Percentage of vote:40.7%
Conservative seats:166 Percentage of seats:25.2% Percentage of vote:31.7%

Same as above; 8% gaps do that.

Thu 5th May 2005:
Labour seats:355 Percentage of seats:55% Percentage of vote:35.2%
Conservative seats:198 Percentage of seats:30.5 Percentage of vote:32.3%

This one is much more interesting, given the size of the gap in votes, and the large gap in the number of seats.

Nearly forgot my favourite (which does contradict the thesis of Labour's advantage somewhat):

Thu 25th Oct 1951:
Conservative/Unionist seats:321 Percentage of seats:51.3% Percentage of vote:48.0%

Labour seats:295 Percentage of seats:47.2 Percentage of vote:48.8%

This is more of what I would have expected; I would have expected that Conservatives would have won electorates, while the combined Lib Dem/Labour vote is greater.

Though to be fair, it's perhaps unsurprising given that the head of state gets the postion by inheritance and they determine who will be the head of government.

Erm...no they don't.

Convention is a major part of British constitutional law, and convention, as part of our common law system, dictates that the leader of the largest party/coalition in the House of Commons is appointed PM.

Therefore, the monarch is legally obliged to pick the leader of the largest party/coalition in the Commons.

As a result, the monarch has no role in determining who will be the head of government.