In The Know wrote:
david wrote:
No it doesn't. You are making a huge assumption, that everyone who says that would vote Conservative or Lib Dem would automatically back the coalition. There is nothing in the poll to back up that wild assumption.

... and absolutely nothing that shows that anyone who said they would vote loony Labour will actually do so !

In the voting "intentions" stated, the combined LibDem and Tory votes beat the loony Labour vote by 3 per cent ... which is what I said !

and the combined Labour and Lib Dem votes beat the Tory vote by 19%, but that doesn't prove anything either.

david wrote:
and the combined Labour and Lib Dem votes beat the Tory vote by 19%, but that doesn't prove anything either.

... but the loony Labour party is NOT in Coalition, are they ?
So, adding their figure to anyone else's is utterly irrelevant. You may as well add their fgure to the Zimbabwe ruling party !

You simply dont understand politics.

At the last election David Cameron won most seats - but short of an overal majority.
He could have governed as a minority government, but chose Coalition instead (much to the surprise of many).

At the next election, IF David Cameron doesn't win an outright majority he can again chose to continue to govern as a minority government or he could again chose to go into Coalition with the LibDems.

Thats why the combined LibDem / Tory vote matters ... it WILL be the majority and it WILL represent the majority of the Country.

In The Know wrote:


At the last election David Cameron won most seats - but short of an overal majority.
He could have governed as a minority government, but chose Coalition instead (much to the surprise of many).

At the next election, IF David Cameron doesn't win an outright majority he can again chose to continue to govern as a minority government or he could again chose to go into Coalition with the LibDems.

Thats why the combined LibDem / Tory vote matters ... it WILL be the majority and it WILL represent the majority of the Country.

According to the aggregate polls as of 18th March, if an election were held now Labour would win an outright majority of 20 seats (see link below) and so would not need to go into coalition with anyone. That's before the boost to their ratings over the past week is taken into account.

ukpollingreport.co.uk/

If you think elections should be decided on % votes then I presume you're for an all out PR system, not the one we currently have.

david wrote:
According to the aggregate polls as of 18th March, if an election were held now Labour would win an outright majority of 20 seats (see link below) and so would not need to go into coalition with anyone. That's before the boost to their ratings over the past week is taken into account.

You're making assumptions again, David ... IF, IF, IF !

"If an election were held now" ... well there isnt an election for three years so its all pointless, isnt it?

There is no guarantee that anyone will vote (then) the way they said they would last week. There is no guarantee (esp amongst loony voters) that they will actually turn out and vote at all !

anyone who votes for an opportunist like Milipede deserves what they get (just take his posturing over access to Cameron for example ... from the party that SOLD peerages !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

In The Know wrote:
You're making assumptions again, David ... IF, IF, IF !

"If an election were held now" ... well there isnt an election for three years so its all pointless, isnt it?

[/quote]

Exactly ITK, it's all speculation.