Jump to content

General Election 2017


ender4

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

you know how people laughed at Dem taking the Daily Mash seriously  .....  I mean come on 

by the way , The soviets were actually the backers , not China , Mao agreed to support as he needed Soviet economic and military aid

 

Inane it is then. Depends what you mean by backers. The Soviets provided hardware. The Chinese provided hardware and a million troops. To me that makes them the main backers by a country mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I'm getting confused. Won't Tories need a majority of about 76 to be able to form a government? They need 326 so more than half of 650. So that would be 76 more than Labour on about 250 if the rest add up to 76. Or am I misinterpreting how everyone is quoting their majorities?

Two points:

The Tories don't need a majority to (attempt to) form the next government.

Having more seats than all of the other parties gives a party a majority (without taking in to account the speaker/deputy speaker issue).

Edited by snowychap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I'm getting confused. Won't Tories need a majority of about 76 to be able to form a government? They need 326 so more than half of 650. So that would be 76 more than Labour on about 250 if the rest add up to 76. Or am I misinterpreting how everyone is quoting their majorities?

To get a majority you need 326 seats, but with Sinn Fein not voting in parliament, the speaker and deputy speakers you need less for a working majority.  A majority of 76 would be 76 seats on top of that figure I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, meregreen said:

Inane it is then. Depends what you mean by backers. The Soviets provided hardware. The Chinese provided hardware and a million troops. To me that makes them the main backers by a country mile.

 

Without the soviets there may well not have been  a Korean war  , indeed Truman saw it as an "act of Russian aggression"  and as such reversed US policy of excluding Korea from within it's defence perimeter 

but we are going way OT now  .. the Wilsoncenter.org has a great paper on it though if you are interested

“It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the Korean imbroglio was instigated by the Russians for the specific purpose of discouraging the Chinese Communists from breaking away from Soviet tutelage.”


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No dogs at my polling station, Plenty of people though. The constituency here generally swings back & forth between con/lab every 2 or 3 elections but con had an 11,000 margin 2 years ago and would be surprised if that completely swings today as the turnout here is usually around 45000.

Looking forward to tonight, Despite not having a huge interest in politics in general i do enjoy following the results (& the US elections) as they come in and will happily sit up all/most of the night watching before heading to work a bit bleary eyed

Edited by LakotaDakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mjmooney said:

Well, Labour might not win on seats, but what about the all-important possession stats? 

Are we using a 1940's style ball in honour of their manifesto :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Well, Labour might not win on seats, but what about the all-important possession stats? 

Sod the possession, what about the style? If we aren't campaigning like Brazil 1970 it's not good enough.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â