- This topic has 1,287 replies, 34 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 7 months ago by
.
- Posts
I do hope that Labour voters will not listen to the horseshit from the other parties and in particularly SNP that it is a foregone conclusion and not bother to vote.
I've stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains
I've walked and I crawled on six crooked highwaysMy fear, too. I can’t believe that this is happening. I’ve waited so long for it I’m beginning to worry that I’m dreaming and I will wake up. Alastair Campbell is worried about voter complacency too.
They’ve been pushing this ‘supermajority’ nonsense for that very reason, also partly to frighten Tory voters back from Reform, and finally so they can spin a smaller wipeout as a ‘win’.
It will be a supermajority.
If you don’t think it will be then get on betfair. You can make loads of money betting against it.When a Labour Majority is 1.03
Labour number of seats:
300 – 349 is 32
Between 350 – 399 is 9.2
Between 400-449 is just 2.46…
Or Between 450 and 499 is favourite @ just 2.38
Smaller than 300 is in the hundreds.Whereas Conservative it’s:
50 – 99 is favourite @ 2.38
With 100 to 149 being 2.66
150 to 199 is 8…
and 200 to 249 is 44
Bigger than 249 is in the hundredsValue Is EverythingMy bet for labour to win most seats of any party @ 2.1 is now “no offer”, not even 1.01.
I could LAY it @ 1.01, but I don’t think that’s “value”.
Value Is EverythingHad to laugh about the Unite Union sending out emails to their members.
An e-mail saying that members should remember to express their “democratic right to vote” – and then actually telling them which way to vote – “Labour”. How “democratic” of them. LOLValue Is EverythingWorth watching during the night just to see the smile disappear from so many smug tory faces. Marvellous.
My polling station is just across the road from my home. I am usually the first to vote.
Today there were three people ahead of me. By the time the staff had checked details etc, there was a queue out of the door. I have never known that in any election before.
OK, it is a small sample size based on only one polling station – but perhaps it is a sign of a high turnout, despite the utterly boring campaign?
‘It will be a supermajority.’
I called it nonsense because there is zero concept of it here, not because I think it’ll be close. A party has a majority whether it’s one or 200. Obviously low majorities are vulnerable to rebellion but beyond that it makes no difference.
Interesting to hear Cork, I’m in a different constituency this time so will be unable to report but perhaps if a pattern emerges then we’ll hear about it in the media it it can report such things.
“Worth watching during the night just to see the smile disappear from so many smug tory faces. Marvellous.”
I’ll be waiting for Kuenssberg’s own “Ralph Wiggum” moment, where you can actually see her heart rip in half.
Front page headline of the “Daily Star”:
“A fond farewell to all those self entitled clowns, chancers, liars, wazzocks, cheats, sociopaths, scumbags and bellends who’ll be out of work this time tomorrow after taking us for complete mugs these last 14 years.”
I wish they would say what they mean…
Like Richard88 I too am no fan of ‘elected dictatorships’ i.e goverments with large majorities, but from a legislative point of view it makes do difference if that majority is 80, as it was in 2019, or 280+ that it might well be tomorrow: such governments have free rein to enact more or less whatever they please, renedering next to pointless hours of debate within and outwith parliament
The correct use of the word ‘supermajority’ is its application to votes that require more than a simple majority to pass e.g 75/25 rather than 51/49, which I believe is sometimes the requirement in the USA and probably elsewhere too
No doubt some clever dick in Conservative Central Office decided to mutate the meaning into the weasel word we’re subject to now out of desperation and/or a belief that most of the electorate are thick, which might well be the case if someone as ostensibly intelligent and analytical as Gingertipster has been fooled
I’m hoping of course for an ‘ultramajority’ enabling me to collect on my 500+ seats bet, mentioned earlier. Wheelbarrow is greased and polished
Thank fk this tortuous six weeks is at an end
No idea why he didn’t hang on for as long as possible, but I do have some sympathy for Sunak. Given Johnson, Truss, Covid, and the Ukraine war it would have needed something akin to a miracle to turn things around.
The in-fighting – which will no doubt continue – and the potential lurch to the right has been unwanted distraction. Then followed Reform’s intervention in an attempt to hoover up the far right’s votes.
He hasn’t been in charge that long, but at least he has got the ecomony back on track.
D-Day was the only obvious mistake he made during the campaign, but in reality the writing was already on the wall.
I felt he out performed a very wooden, and cautious Starmer in the head to heads, but seems to have counted for very little. I doubt the campaign in general has seen much mind changing.
Starmer has banged on and on about change. Yes, he has changed the Labour party to something unrecognisable to try and get them elected. The performance of a weasel type character, not to be trusted. Does that contrived change extend to the population?
Will the boat saga get any better?
Will the NHS & Care situation improve?
What will happen to public services?
I would have big doubts about all of those. This has very much a feel of change for change’s sake. Labour can’t be any worse, can they? The vast majority who longed for Brexit are no better off, and I think this could well up with exactly the same scenario.
I’ve voted and there was a chatty gathering at the church hall polling station with around 20 folk milling around, cars being shuffled in and out of the small car park, and short queues at the tellers’ desks.
On enquiring I was told that voting had been ‘brisk’ all morning. A good sign.
“The correct use of the word ‘supermajority’ is its application to votes that require more than a simple majority to pass e.g 75/25 rather than 51/49, which I believe is sometimes the requirement in the USA and probably elsewhere too
No doubt some clever dick in Conservative Central Office decided to mutate the meaning into the weasel word we’re subject to now out of desperation and/or a belief that most of the electorate are thick, which might well be the case if someone as ostensibly intelligent and analytical as Gingertipster has been fooled”.
———————————————————————-Drone, I do love your wonderful vocabulary on the forum, it is greater than the rest of us put together. But you can be a pompous ass when it comes to the meaning of words.
I don’t particularly care whether it is a made up word or doesn’t officially have the correct meaning. As long as we know what is meant by the word in its context.
It is surely quite apt to describe a party getting a super majority in this context of an election as a “supermajority”?
imo A “Supermajority” / super majority in the context of an election should mean a majority that has not or has rarely been achieved before. The greatest majority in the House Of Commons is I believe 210 in 1924. It has been a word used by both right and left-wing journalists.
But if you’re needing to put an actual percentage on it, the term “supermajority” is used for votes requiring two-thirds 66.67% of the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore surely quite apt to use the term “supermajority” / “super majority” in the context of describing a party getting more than 66.67% of the seats in a British general election?
The betting has as favourite Labour to win by between 400 and 449 of the Commons 650 seats.
Second favourite is between 450 and 499.
66.67% of the seats would be 433 seats.
Value Is Everything
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.