Next GE

Total share was:

Conservative 13,667,213
Labour: 12,874,985

Sluffy wrote:

y2johnny wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wessy wrote: they are now running scared that a GE any time soon would put Corbyn in number 10.

You're dreaming. You realise Labour lost the election don't you, by a huge margin.

There's more chance of me being PM than JC.

Less than 2500 votes kept jc pout of number ten. Thats not a huge margin

I don't know where you got that stat from Johnny but its clearly wrong.

The Conservatives got 56 more seats than Labour (318 to 262) and if you did the simple maths of dividing the 2,500 votes between those 56 seats it comes out at something like 50 votes per seat (44.64 votes per seat average).

The 5th lowest seat majority in the country was Goldsmith at Richmond on 45 (and even then they beat the Lib Dems into second).

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/general-election-smallest-majorities-constituencies/

And if that wasn't enough if Corbyn/Labour wanted an overall majority to actually win the election they would have needed a further 8 seats thus bringing the total up to 64 seats needed to win, and dividing 2,500 votes into those gives just less than an average of 40 votes per seat majority that they would have to overturn (39.06 average).

In other words I think your statement is completely wrong mate.

Think it was in the Metro, they said if he had won seven seats that were won by a small Conservative margin. He could have been Prime Minister IF the Lib Dems, SNP, DUC, Independent and the cleaning lady wanted to form a coalition.

Because there where numerous seats that where very very close and those seats if corbyn had got them that is hoe far he was off winning those seats.  Less than 2500.

Sorry for the daily fail link but maybe now you can all chill calling me a plank


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4592456/DAN-HODGES-Britain-just-2-000-votes-abyss.html

For balance

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-election-results-votes-away-prime-minister-theresa-may-hung-parliament-a7782581.html

It's a bit like saying Gary Madine is only 50 goals a season away from being Lionel Messi.

Like I said and the independent article says, it would be a chance, but in such a scenario the Conservatives would still have the first shot at forming a government, with the Lib Dems not happy in a coalition with either party, neither labour or the Tories could rely on their support.

I do not think either Labour or the Tories would risk losing a vote on the queens speech so even with seven extra seats the likely outcome would be another general election.

If corbyn did take the risk and the tories didn't it would have seriously undermined any gains they had made so realistically he was nowhere near number 10.

What they are both saying - as Deano has said above already - is meaningless.

In theory if Labour had taken seven marginal seats, then on paper the Conservatives and the DUP would need help from another party to form the Government.

However that doesn't mean in real life that would have happened - no one expected a Lib Dem / Conservative coalition a few years back for instance.

The paper lists the seats as -

"seven constituencies won by the Conservatives over Labour with the slimmest majorities were Southampton Itchen (majority 31); Preseli Pembrokeshire (majority 314); Hastings and Rye (majority 346); Chipping Barnet (majority 353); Thurrock (345 majority); Norwich North (majority 507); and Pudsey (majority 331)".

A total of 2227 votes.

But even this is meaningless because all you need is half plus 1 of those voters in each seat who voted Conservative to instead vote Labour for the seat to change - you do not require every single one of their votes.

Then as Deano said originally and FabiansRP a post or two later - a coalition of everyone else (and the tea lady!) with a majority of just 1, is completely unworkable.

Just to emphasise the absurdity of the story the independent went on to say -

"Had the Conservatives seized four seats from Labour – Dudley North (22 majority); Newcastle-under-Lyme (30 majority); Crew and Nantwich (48 majority); and Canterbury (187 majority) – Ms May would have been able to form a government without support from the Democratic Unionist Party, which won 10 seats".

[Actually I that statement is not factually correct anyway as that would have given the Conservatives 324 seats when 326 seats are required but does work because Sinn Fain doesn't send its 7 MP's to Parliament nor does the Speaker use his vote]

Or 287 votes in 4 seats (or half plus 1 of those votes as explained above) then May would not have needed the DUP.

It's all theoretical if buts and maybe nonsense intended to fill column inches and intended to sensationalise things as 287 votes in 4 seats is more achievable than 2,227 in 7 seats - yet the story in both papers went for the more implausible Corbyn outcome than the May outcome.

Fabians Right Peg wrote:

y2johnny wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wessy wrote: they are now running scared that a GE any time soon would put Corbyn in number 10.

You're dreaming. You realise Labour lost the election don't you, by a huge margin.

There's more chance of me being PM than JC.

Less than 2500 votes kept jc pout of number ten. Thats not a huge margin

How does that work?

Tories would need to lose 28 seats and labour gain to make them largest party, there are not 28 seats with a labour conservative majority of less than 100.

Assuming then that they are looking at SNP labour coalition (ignoring the liberals who say they will not entertain coalition). There would still need 10 seats swing again, I don't think the figures work on that one.

Chuck in Plyd and the Greens and your maybe down to needing 4 or 5 seats and they may then have a coalition with a majority, but your still relying on the conservatives not being able to pass a queens speech and the liberal democrats holding the key to that one.

He would then be as much of a lame duck, if not more than May, he would have less MP's in his own party than the opposition.

The bottom line is that to form a government he needs way more than 2500 votes.

the conservatives, libs and UDP could be enough to vote down an alternative queens speech

No way would the Lib Dems make that mistake again if they did they would be finished and rightly so.

May will plough on like a leper with two broken legs wading through treacle until the tories put her out of her misery or we get to a point when the nation revolts against the demolition of our economy that they have masterminded over the last two years - but there is no way Corbyn has any kind of mandate to have a go at steering the ship.

wanderlust wrote:May will plough on like a leper with two broken legs wading through treacle until the tories put her out of her misery or we get to a point when the nation revolts against the demolition of our economy that they have masterminded over the last two years - but there is no way Corbyn has any kind of mandate to have a go at steering the ship.

Do you have an 'off' button? You keep repeating yourself.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:May will plough on like a leper with two broken legs wading through treacle until the tories put her out of her misery or we get to a point when the nation revolts against the demolition of our economy that they have masterminded over the last two years - but there is no way Corbyn has any kind of mandate to have a go at steering the ship.

Do you have an 'off' button? You keep repeating yourself.

No.
Do you have a read before you open your big mouth button? 

It's just that there is no record of me making the point that Corbyn has no mandate to govern before.

tbf you aren't the only one who doesn't read stuff properly on here

May's cabinet reshuffle looks like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic after it has hit the iceberg.

Even the Titanic had survivors.

gloswhite wrote:Even the Titanic had survivors.

And it's one of the few things even Nat hasn't gone down on.

boltonbonce wrote:

gloswhite wrote:Even the Titanic had survivors.

And it's one of the few things even Nat hasn't gone down on.

Please keep it clean, you know we are a family club.