Reply With Quotetable 1, page 6 and Table 5 page 12Originally Posted by Lt Col Kojak Slaphead III wrote on Thu, 23 July 2015 18:15
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
There's lots of numbers that don't mean anything. Can you point me to the summary part that supports your claim. I can then read that part in further detail
table 1, page 6 and Table 5 page 12
according to table 5, only 31% are elite and middle class, the rest are working class or working class made good.
If we had fair representation then you could stick solidly to your principles, but with FPTP you have to use the system as its a terrible way of doing it.It struck me reading the reports of the leadership election and how chaotic its has become ,and incredibly Jeremy Corbyn winning , the Tories and the right wing press must be praying for this moment , they will have a bigger field day ,than they did with Ed Miliband and his left of center leaning thoughts.Could it be that Chuka Umunna had inkling or was advised he could easily get beat and stood back to avoid a damaging defeat to the left of the party, only to rise form the ashes in a quick second election , or lead a new right center / Liberals party ???Chuckup's politics mean he would comfortably fit in with the Tories if he so chose to do. No problem with that, but if that is what you want, join the Tories.
Could have sworn it was less than 25%.
apologies, 37% of the electorate that voted. I notice you chose not to make the same point about 30% who voted labour. It's as almost as if you can't look at these things objectively. who'd have thought.Archie
Why should I? They are not the party who have been given the right to do largely what they please, despite having less than one in four of the electorate vote for them. The system was wrong in 1997 when Labour's "landslide" saw them returned with under 31% of eligible votes and it's even more wrong after this year's election.Archie37% of the electorate voted for the Tories. I'd say a large part of that would be the working classes.
Having Liz Kendall and Chuka Umunna say they would not serve in a Corbyn led Shadow Cabinet would certainly not make me less likely to vote Labour - quite the opposite in fact.
You were not debating Labour though, were you, you were claiming that if 37% of the electorte voted Tory then many of them will have been working class. Now it has been pointed out that it was only 37% of those that voted (should have known to check the stats you gave given your history) you aregument is even weaker.Archie37% of the electorate voted for the Tories. I'd say a large part of that would be the working classes.
my argument is perfectly sound, 65% voting is a very good approximation to the electorate as a wholeArchie37% of the electorate voted for the Tories. I'd say a large part of that would be the working classes.Could have sworn it was less than 25%.
As usual, when you are proven wrong, you come up with a distraction by using a TOTALLY DIFFERENT SCENARIO, rather than defend your position.Archie37% of the electorate voted for the Tories. I'd say a large part of that would be the working classes.Could have sworn it was less than 25%.apologies, 37% of the electorate that voted. I notice you chose not to make the same point about 30% who voted labour. It's as almost as if you can't look at these things objectively. who'd have thought.
I don't need to defend my position as it is sound. What scale factor we apply to the tories has to be applied to labour.
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of your position today considering you've argued against it so vociferously in the past.
The point you were originally trying to make was that a large proportion of the working class voted Tory but you have provided no evidence what so ever to back that up. You want to make assumptions about who people who did not vote want to form a government. Given the myriad of reasons for not voting ina general election your aassumptions have no grounding in reality.
now relating to point 3 if you are saying no inference can be made then I would assume that you also agree that if 75% don't vote in a union ballot then the ballot has no credence. That is if you apply your rules consistently rather than just pick and choose when they are to apply just to suit your own agenda. You have form in this regard and you do it repeatedly. It makes your arguments look whimsical rather than have any basis in fact.I don't need to defend my position as it is sound. What scale factor we apply to the tories has to be applied to labour.
Sorry you have taken a giant leap to somewhere completely different and I have no idea where you are coming from. Why do you always make incorrect assumptions about things? Why don't you stick to facts and if you do not have facts establish or ask what they are? If you want to know my opinion, all you have to do is ask, there is no need to make illogical assumptionsof course they do, you just don't like the conclusions drawn. let me recap as it appears you have lost your way and are struggling to follow.1. The toreis polled 37% of those that voted. That is an awful lot of votes and would indicate that the working classes are voting tory.It indicates that 37% of those that voted, voted tory. Nothing more, nothing less. You are drawing conclusions based on precisely nothing.
Posting Permissions
