[arista]

This was debated on the Sunday Politics BBC1



[Mixed messages: Extracts from emails
sent by the Balls team, top, and the Miliband camp, below]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2kuL88oZn



The History





Sign Of The Times

[Kizzy]

#team Milliband, Balls didn't vote on the bedroom tax.

[Livia]

Even a rift manufactured by their best press people can't make this pair of champagne socialists interesting.

[Kizzy]

No matter what they do for most of the UK it still makes them more vote worthy than the elitists currently in government.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

No matter what they do for most of the UK it still makes them more vote worthy than the elitists currently in government.

In your opinion. Not in the opinion of the majority of voters who didn't vote for Labour last time, thus making then less vote-worthy. That's how it works, this voting malarkey.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

In your opinion. Not in the opinion of the majority of voters who didn't vote for Labour last time, thus making then less vote-worthy. That's how it works, this voting malarkey.

I'm aware of that livia, and they didn't get a clear majority did they, so not quite as popular as they like to think they are.
A lot has happened since 2010 too.

[joeysteele]

Look, most leaders and particularly Prime Ministers have problems and difficult relationships with their Chancellors, that goes back ages.
Harold Wilson had difficult times with Roy Jenkins and Margaret Thatcher also felt the scorn of her Chancellors as well.

I myself don't see any real major rifts between the 2 Eds,in fact I doubt were Labour to win in 2015, it would be much different to what we have now as to the relationship between Cameron and Osborne.
I feel sure as to some things Osborne says particularly that David Cameron would likely love to wring his neck.
There is always a bit of a power thing with Prime Ministers and Chancellors, so no story here for me I am afraid at all.

I am sure after 2015 these 2,the Eds, will at the very least bring back some compassion to monetary policy which is something we are never going to get at all from this bunch of cowards who can only use their power and wealth to humiliate, suppress and hammer the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable in society,including the genuinely sick and disabled and terminally ill people too.

That is what needs to be removed from Govt, that heartless attitude and it is why the Conservative party is unlikely to ever get an overall majority in an election for an even longer time to come,something they haven't in fact been able to do for over 21 years now.
That is what will matter most when voters decide who they will vote for, not whether Ed Miliband and Ed Balls get on.
They don't have to get on to bring fairness, compassion and justice back to policy,especially policy that affects those who are poorest, weakest and most vulnerable.

[reece(:]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

No matter what they do for most of the UK it still makes them more vote worthy than the elitists currently in government.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

In your opinion. Not in the opinion of the majority of voters who didn't vote for Labour last time, thus making then less vote-worthy. That's how it works, this voting malarkey.

Is it? The conservatives got 36% of the popular vote... meaning that 64% of voters didn't vote for the Tories last time, either, and of course, that 64% of the population is living under the rule of a government that it didn't vote for. Democracy in action is so awesome.

So... no it's not really how it works at all. I guess you could argue that more people didn't vote for Labour than didn't vote for the Conservatives, and that's "how it works", which is accurate. And ****ing depressing TBH. But again, that's democracy... arguably the least crappy political system we've come up with thus far.

[Z]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Is it? The conservatives got 36% of the popular vote... meaning that 64% of voters didn't vote for the Tories last time, either, and of course, that 64% of the population is living under the rule of a government that it didn't vote for. Democracy in action is so awesome.

So... no it's not really how it works at all. I guess you could argue that more people didn't vote for Labour than didn't vote for the Conservatives, and that's "how it works", which is accurate. And ****ing depressing TBH. But again, that's democracy... arguably the least crappy political system we've come up with thus far.

That's 64% of the people who bothered to vote... I'd guess that the number of non-voters who don't want the Tories in power is probably greater than the number of non-voters who do want them in power.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Is it? The conservatives got 36% of the popular vote... meaning that 64% of voters didn't vote for the Tories last time, either, and of course, that 64% of the population is living under the rule of a government that it didn't vote for. Democracy in action is so awesome.

So... no it's not really how it works at all. I guess you could argue that more people didn't vote for Labour than didn't vote for the Conservatives, and that's "how it works", which is accurate. And ****ing depressing TBH. But again, that's democracy... arguably the least crappy political system we've come up with thus far.

Oh, some statistics. Nice. Here's a statistic for you: roughly 50% of people eligible to vote didn't even bother to get off their arses and drag themselves to a polling station. That's depressing.

The candidates who get the most votes wins the seat, and the party that gets the most seats is the winner. You can rub the statistics anyway you like, that's the bottom line.

[Kizzy]

Thank god they are thinking of lowering the voting age.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Oh, some statistics. Nice. Here's a statistic for you: roughly 50% of people eligible to vote didn't even bother to get off their arses and drag themselves to a polling station. That's depressing.

The candidates who get the most votes wins the seat, and the party that gets the most seats is the winner. You can rub the statistics anyway you like, that's the bottom line.

Like I said, democracy is arguably the best system of governance we've come up with thus far. That doesn't make it "good". It's still crap, and the result is still a population being run by a group of people that the majority of citizens (even those who did vote) did not vote for, and do not want. THAT is the bottom line. I'm not saying I have a better alternative.

Besides - my point was only that you used the fact that "the majority of people didn't vote for labour" to illustrate a point of some sort. I was only pointing out that it's not really much of a point, as the majority of voters didn't vote Tory either.