Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Nodin · 10-04-2013 10:02AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Around 42% I believe, but so what, no one would ever claim she was hugely popular. She was, however, more popular than the alternatives.

...given the system that was/is there. However the "how come the people elected her 3 times" gives the illusion that a majority wanted her in and this was some popular wave that lasted throughout her tenure. Twas not so.

Fratton Fred · 10-04-2013 10:08AM

Nodin wrote: »

...given the system that was/is there. However the "how come the people elected her 3 times" gives the illusion that a majority wanted her in and this was some popular wave that lasted throughout her tenure. Twas not so.

I agree, but it would also indicate she was more popular than the alternative.

AEDIC · 10-04-2013 10:09AM

Nodin wrote: »

...given the system that was/is there. However the "how come the people elected her 3 times" gives the illusion that a majority wanted her in and this was some popular wave that lasted throughout her tenure. Twas not so.

Same can be said for any elected representative of the HoP, what is odd though is the way in which people choose to use the 'majority' argument to suit their convenient point of view at any given time. 'oh Fred Bloggs has every right to be there because he was democratically elected by the majority of voters' etc etc

That is the way the system works.....majority is majority, until the system changes it will always be so.

Spook_ie · 10-04-2013 10:11AM

Nodin wrote: »

...given the system that was/is there. However the "how come the people elected her 3 times" gives the illusion that a majority wanted her in and this was some popular wave that lasted throughout her tenure. Twas not so.

Hmmm.... the only problem with that is that it also means that there was a majority that didn't care one way or the other, that in effect is a supportive vote.

This may well have been due to exasperation at the policies of the then left wing Labour party which were deemed unelectable by many people.

My own father a labour supporter for years voted Conservative purely because of the looney left

Nodin · 10-04-2013 10:13AM

AEDIC wrote: »

Same can be said for any elected representative of the HoP, what is odd though is the way in which people choose to use the 'majority' argument to suit their convenient point of view at any given time. 'oh Fred Bloggs has every right to be there because he was democratically elected by the majority of voters' etc etc

That is the way the system works.....majority is majority, until the system changes it will always be so.

42% is not a majority of the vote. Not in this dimension anyway.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I agree, but it would also indicate she was more popular than the alternative

.....with 42% of the electorate. At her peak.

Nodin · 10-04-2013 10:15AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Hmmm.... the only problem with that is that it also means that there was a majority that didn't care one way or the other, that in effect is a supportive vote.
....

Don't see where you're getting that from. Given the eccentricities of the British system, it makes no sense.

Fratton Fred · 10-04-2013 10:26AM

Nodin wrote: »

Don't see where you're getting that from. Given the eccentricities of the British system, it makes no sense.

There are fors and against every electoral system. Remember we have just got rid of an environment minister who squeezed into the Dail on third preference votes.

Besides, Sinn Fein did nicely out of the British system in 1916, claiming power with 48% of the vote in Ireland.

Nodin · 10-04-2013 10:29AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are fors and against every electoral system.......

No!!!!!!!!!

The fact is that she was not some massively popular leader, contrary to the impression some would like you to have.

Fratton Fred · 10-04-2013 10:34AM

Nodin wrote: »

No!!!!!!!!!

The fact is that she was not some massively popular leader, contrary to the impression some would like you to have.

I'm not sure where you get the impression people are claiming that, she most certainly wasn't. But, she won three elections, so she obviously wasn't universally hated either.

despised her, but looking back I have softened to her somewhat and prefer to look at tenure objectively.

Nodin · 10-04-2013 10:39AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure where you get the impression people are claiming that, she most certainly wasn't. But, she won three elections, so she obviously wasn't universally hated either.

despised her, but looking back I have softened to her somewhat and prefer to look at tenure objectively.

You seem desperate to get the last word in and quibble Fred. Which, considering the fact that I'm right, is somewhat baffling.

At her most popular, 58% of voters preferred somebody else. A majority of the vote went elsewhere. Therefore this "but the people elected her three times" thing - which implies a popular majority throughout her three terms - is bollocks.

Fratton Fred · 10-04-2013 10:43AM

Nodin wrote: »

You seem desperate to get the last word in and quibble Fred. Which, considering the fact that I'm right, is somewhat baffling.

At her most popular, 58% of voters preferred somebody else. A majority of the vote went elsewhere. Therefore this "but the people elected her three times" thing - which implies a popular majority throughout her three terms - is bollocks.

But she did get elected three times, that makes her more popular than the alternatives (which in itself is no great feat), how can you argue against that?

AEDIC · 10-04-2013 10:48AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are fors and against every electoral system. Remember we have just got rid of an environment minister who squeezed into the Dail on third preference votes.

Besides, Sinn Fein did nicely out of the British system in 1916, claiming power with 48% of the vote in Ireland.

Precisely the point I was trying to make (although I was thinking more Labour party than Sinn Fein but whatever). And absolutely in this dimension and a matter of record (what an odd phrase to use btw)

While you have that system in the Uk, then it is going to be 'majority of those people that voted' rather than ' majority of people in the country'

Same for all parties, yet some prefer to ignore that when it suits their agenda (again I am talking Labour Party here and not Sinn Fein before there is another circular argument)

Nodin · 10-04-2013 10:50AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But she did get elected three times, that makes her more popular than the alternatives (which in itself is no great feat), how can you argue against that?

Quibble, last word again? Or is it the doanwannaknowcicles being generated?

She got - at her peak - 42% of the vote. 58% of people wanted some other group/groups in. While this may have given her a victory in terms of the British system, it would be factually incorrect to claim that she won the majority of votes cast. Therefore the implication of

why did the british vote her in three times ?.

needs a few caveats attached.

Nodin · 10-04-2013 10:52AM

AEDIC wrote: »

While you have that system in the Uk, then it is going to be 'majority of those people that voted' rather than ' majority of people in the country'

Good jesus....it wasn't the majority of those that voted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1983

Fratton Fred · 10-04-2013 10:56AM

You're getting tied up in semantics Nodin.

Lets put it another way shall we, in three elections, the Tory party of which she was leader were less unpopular than everybody else.

Better?

AEDIC · 10-04-2013 10:57AM

Nodin wrote: »

Good jesus....it wasn't the majority of those that voted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1983

Ok...Largest number of seats won then is what I mean (apologies) until some form or proportional representation voting system is introduced then this is what you are going to have....

My main point still stands...it is the same for every party, and yet...etc etc...

Nodin · 10-04-2013 10:59AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You're getting tied up in semantics Nodin.

Lets put it another way shall we, in three elections, the Tory party of which she was leader were less unpopular than everybody else.

Better?

The tory party was more popular than any other single alternative. It did not, however, ever have an overall majority of the popular vote.

Nodin · 10-04-2013 11:00AM

AEDIC wrote: »

Ok...Largest number of seats won then is what I mean (apologies) until some form or proportional representation voting system is introduced then this is what you are going to have....

My main point still stands...it is the same for every party, and yet...etc etc...

...I don't know what you're getting at. If somebody made the same claim for labour, I'd raise the same point.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 10-04-2013 11:05AM

Nodin wrote: »

...I don't know what you're getting at. If somebody made the same claim for labour, I'd raise the same point.

you 100% would not

Nodin · 10-04-2013 11:08AM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

you 100% would not

Yes, given my politics I'd be an obvious defender of 'New' labour. I even have a Tony Blair t-shirt.

Spook_ie · 10-04-2013 11:10AM

Nodin wrote: »

You seem desperate to get the last word in and quibble Fred. Which, considering the fact that I'm right, is somewhat baffling.

At her most popular, 58% of voters preferred somebody else. A majority of the vote went elsewhere. Therefore this "but the people elected her three times" thing - which implies a popular majority throughout her three terms - is bollocks.

Have to disagree with you there, the UK system of First past the post boften throws up things like that, for instance in the 1974 election between Ted Heath and Harold Wilson the Conservatives actually polled more votes than Labour but Labour won

1974 election
Labour Conservative Liberal
Popular vote 11,645,616 11,872,180 6,059,519
Percentage 37.2% 37.9% 19.3%

1979 election
Conservative Labour Lib
Popular vote 13,697,923 11,532,218 4,313,804
Percentage 43.9% 36.9% 13.8%

1983 Election
Conservative Labour Lib/Dem
Popular vote 13,012,316 8,456,934 7,780,949
Percentage 42.4% 27.6% 25.4%

1987 Election
Conservative Labour Lib/Dem
Popular vote 13,760,935 10,029,270 7,341,651
Percentage 42.2% 30.8% 22.6%

As can be seen to say there wasn't a majority of voters for MT would be a misnomer as only 30-37% prefered Labour and only 13-25% prefered Lib/Dem. The UK does not use PR so to try and use pure %age figures to bolster an argument is misleading

Fratton Fred · 10-04-2013 11:12AM

Nodin wrote: »

...I don't know what you're getting at. If somebody made the same claim for labour, I'd raise the same point.

And Sinn Fein in 1918 when they polled 46.9% of the vote?

Nodin · 10-04-2013 11:14AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Have to disagree with you there, the UK system of First past the post boften throws up things like that, for instance in the 1974 election between Ted Heath and Harold Wilson the Conservatives actually polled more votes than Labour but Labour won

....

...because its an insane system, which often gives vast majorities to parties who don't have a majority of votes cast.

Spook_ie · 10-04-2013 11:16AM

Nodin wrote: »

...because its an insane system, which often gives vast majorities to parties who don't have a majority of votes cast.

None the less that is their system and to try and allude that MT wouldn't have been elected under a different system is misleading

Nodin · 10-04-2013 11:16AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And Sinn Fein in 1918 when they polled 46.9% of the vote?

"But what about...."

I'm sorry Fred, but has your need to quibble and get the last word in made you confused as to the subject matter of the thread....? And the era? Normally when we get to "but the...." you at least keep it in the same time frame.

Nodin · 10-04-2013 11:17AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

None the less that is their system and to try and allude that MT wouldn't have been elected under a different system is misleading

Well that would depend on the system. My point isn't related to that, but to the notion and implication that she was somehow massively popular - she wasn't.

Spook_ie · 10-04-2013 11:28AM

Nodin wrote: »

Well that would depend on the system. My point isn't related to that, but to the notion and implication that she was somehow massively popular - she wasn't.

She was popular in the fact that the Conservatives with MT at the lead WON 3 elections and she remained as the PM for the UK for 11 years 6 months and a few days, if she were as universally hated as people try to make out she wouldn't have lasted that long as PM let alone the 15 years 9 months as leader of the Conservatives

Spook_ie · 10-04-2013 11:28AM

Nodin wrote: »

Well that would depend on the system. My point isn't related to that, but to the notion and implication that she was somehow massively popular - she wasn't.

But conversely she wasn't massively unpopular either

EDIT apologies for the double reply to one post

Nodin · 10-04-2013 11:30AM

Spook_ie wrote: »

She was popular in the fact that the Conservatives with MT at the lead WON 3 elections and she remained as the PM for the UK for 11 years 6 months and a few days, if she were as universally hated as people try to make out she wouldn't have lasted that long as PM let alone the 15 years 9 months as leader of the Conservatives

I never made any such claim for "universal hatred", so why you bring up this point with me......

Fratton Fred · 10-04-2013 11:37AM

Nodin wrote: »

"But what about...."

I'm sorry Fred, but has your need to quibble and get the last word in made you confused as to the subject matter of the thread....? And the era? Normally when we get to "but the...." you at least keep it in the same time frame.

As you seemed to be having a rant, I am interested in seeing how even handed your opinion was.

The answer is obviously "not very".

Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Comments