Tony Blair - leaves 27th June

Darat · 10th May 2007, 04:32 AM

The world's longest resignation is almost over, we now have a date for when Tony Blair will resign as Prime Minister, 27th June.

(ETA 2007!

)

Francesca R · 10th May 2007, 04:50 AM

Didn't beat Maggie then.

andyandy · 10th May 2007, 04:52 AM

Has he achieved his legacy checklist? Blue Peter and Songs of Praise wasn't it?

Ove · 10th May 2007, 04:54 AM

Hmmmm, the guy who had it all. Age, charisma, youth, votes and then blew it all away because he so stubbornly followed the little unintelligent man in the White House. I NEVER understood why a clever and intelligent man like Blair could be so blatantly ignorant.. Sad story.

Francesca R · 10th May 2007, 05:00 AM

He also failed miserably to capitalise on the London property boom, selling 1 Richmond Crescent (N1) for GBP 615,000 in 1997 and then having to pony up GBP 3,500,000 for 29 Connaught Square (W2) in 2004.

Darat · 10th May 2007, 05:01 AM

I don't think you can say he threw it all away, on many levels my opinion is that his 3 terms as PM have achieved a lot. (Albeit that elephant in the room does keep getting in the way a little bit!)

Jaggy Bunnet · 10th May 2007, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

The world's longest resignation is almost over, we now have a date for when Tony Blair will resign as Prime Minister, 27th June.

(ETA 2007!

)

Would it be terribly cynical of me to suggest that there might be some reports/figures/information hitting the press today & tomorrow that may not show the government in an overly favourable manner? Today being a good day to bury bad news...

Jaggy Bunnet · 10th May 2007, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I don't think you can say he threw it all away, on many levels my opinion is that his 3 terms as PM have achieved a lot. (Albeit that elephant in the room does keep getting in the way a little bit!)

Too early to assess his legacy - if anything comes of the loans for honours thing he could be remembered for reasons he will not like at all.

Oh and you really shouldn't talk about Gordon like that!

Francesca R · 10th May 2007, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Would it be terribly cynical of me to suggest that there might be some reports/figures/information hitting the press today & tomorrow that may not show the government in an overly favourable manner? Today being a good day to bury bad news...

The Bank of England raised interest rates. Mortgage misery for millions! Hear the clang of factory gates shutting down for the last time! See exporters crippled by the strength of the pound!

Darat · 10th May 2007, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Would it be terribly cynical of me to suggest that there might be some reports/figures/information hitting the press today & tomorrow that may not show the government in an overly favourable manner? Today being a good day to bury bad news...

Oh central bank interest rate up, inflation still on the up... nah of course not.

Darat · 10th May 2007, 09:30 AM

Totally co-incidentally of course: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6642339.stm

I can think of a quick way ~~Gordon Brown~~ the next PM can save £5 billion! (If his or her Chancellor lets him or her of course...)

Darat · 10th May 2007, 09:33 AM

Just been reading Ming Campbell's comment about the vicar's speech and noticed he wasn't pleased that Blair said Great Britain was the greatest nation. Now I'm not one for jingoism or overt nationalism but I would expect a PM of this country to at least tell everyone that Great Britain is the greatest nation?

geni · 10th May 2007, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Totally co-incidentally of course: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6642339.stm

I can think of a quick way ~~Gordon Brown~~ the next PM can save £5 billion! (If his or her Chancellor lets him or her of course...)

With Blair gone who could credibly oppose Brown in that way?

DanishDynamite · 10th May 2007, 01:32 PM

Elected to the top post three times in a row. Including being elected after 9/11. Like Bush, it is hard to see how a majority of the population doesn't share the blame for any perceived faults.

Darat · 10th May 2007, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

Elected to the top post three times in a row. Including being elected after 9/11. Like Bush, it is hard to see how a majority of the population doesn't share the blame for any perceived faults.

I agree with you to a large extent - for instance if the country really was, at the time, against the invasion of Iraq it wouldn't have happened and since it did we do as population share the "blame" for that.

However remember that the actual popular vote share in 1997 was only 43.2%

1997 General Election votes

Labour 43.2% of the popular vote & 419 seats
Tories : 30.7% of the popular vote & 165 seats
Lib Dems: 16.8% of the popular vote & 28 seats

2001 General Election votes

Labour: 43% of the vote - 413 seats
Tories: 33% of the vote - 166 seats
Lib Dems: 19% of the vote - 52 seats

And for the 2005 General Election I'm going to quote from this site as I think it makes fascinating reading:

Quote:

Labour's percentage of votes - at 36% (down by 5% from 2001) - is the lowest any winning party has ever achieved.

More people voted for the Conservatives in England than for Labour - but the Conservatives won 92 seats less than Labour within England (285 to 193). The Conservatives received 60,000 more votes than Labour in England.

There was an overall turnout of 61% - up 2% from 2001. But this still means that 1/3rd of those registered to vote did not do so. More people opted not to vote (38.7%) than voted for Labour (36%).

Labour's share of the total possible electorate was 22%.

Labour got 55% of the seats but 36% of the votes cast

The Conservatives got 30% of the seats but 33% of the votes cast

The Liberal Democrats got 10% of the seats but 22% of the votes cast.

Both the Electoral Reform Society and 'Make Votes Count' expressed their concern that democracy within the UK was being severely diluted by the continued use of the 'first-past-the-post' system.

Quote:

"The British first-past-the-post electoral system has reduced the general election to a travesty of democracy. How can any government back by one in four or five electors conceivably claim any sort of valid democratic mandate?"

David Lipsey, 'Make Votes Count'

DanishDynamite · 10th May 2007, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

I agree with you to a large extent - for instance if the country really was, at the time, against the invasion of Iraq it wouldn't have happened and since it did we do as population share the "blame" for that.

However remember that the actual popular vote share in 1997 was only 43.2%

1997 General Election votes

Labour 43.2% of the popular vote & 419 seats
Tories : 30.7% of the popular vote & 165 seats
Lib Dems: 16.8% of the popular vote & 28 seats

2001 General Election votes

Labour: 43% of the vote - 413 seats
Tories: 33% of the vote - 166 seats
Lib Dems: 19% of the vote - 52 seats

And for the 2005 General Election I'm going to quote from this site as I think it makes fascinating reading:

I have argued extensively against the "first-past-the-post" type of democracy previously.

Blair was, however, constantly reelected, even if only by a simple majority.

brodski · 10th May 2007, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Both the Electoral Reform Society and 'Make Votes Count' expressed their concern that democracy within the UK was being severely diluted by the continued use of the 'first-past-the-post' system.

If we're using basically the same system which has been in place since the vote was given to 18, 19 and 20 year olds in the 1960's. How can continuing to use the same system for 40 odd years mean that democracy is now more dilute than it was previously, especially as changes have enfranchised, rather than disenfranchised people.

FPTP may not be ideal, but it hasn't got any worse lately.

And back to eth OP, has anyone heard if Blair plans to take the Chiltern Hundreds, or is he planning to do a Ted Heath and sulk on the back benches?

Darat · 10th May 2007, 02:14 PM

I was wondering if he'd even see out his term as an MP.

Darat · 10th May 2007, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

If we're using basically the same system which has been in place since the vote was given to 18, 19 and 20 year olds in the 1960's. How can continuing to use the same system for 40 odd years mean that democracy is now more dilute than it was previously, especially as changes have enfranchised, rather than disenfranchised people.

FPTP may not be ideal, but it hasn't got any worse lately.

And back to eth OP, has anyone heard if Blair plans to take the Chiltern Hundreds, or is he planning to do a Ted Heath and sulk on the back benches?

I think, when the percentage of people actually voting drops as low as it has done, that should be of more concern than the actual system - mind you to be honest I don't know what the turnout trend has been, I know we've had some low ones - but very low historically?

brodski · 10th May 2007, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

I was wondering if he'd even see out his term as an MP.

That's what I was asking.

Darat · 10th May 2007, 02:21 PM

I know - I was musing with you!

brodski · 10th May 2007, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

I think, when the percentage of people actually voting drops as low as it has done, that should be of more concern than the actual system - mind you to be honest I don't know what the turnout trend has been, I know we've had some low ones - but very low historically?

An interesting paper here (PDF warning) http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/papers/p106.pdf

Aparently the 01 election had teh lowest turnout since 1918 (the paper is from 04) But teh paper concludes that this was due to a lack of effective opposition, or real choice between parties, rather than part of a devistating trend.

DanishDynamite · 10th May 2007, 02:34 PM

I used to think that the expression "simple majority" meant the highest proportion.

This is what New Labour won every time.

I just googled and found that the term means 50%. Appologies for using a wrong term for what is still a double re-election of Tony, and hence his policies, in the UK.

brodski · 10th May 2007, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

I used to think that the expression "simple majority" meant the highest proportion.

This is what New Labour won every time.

I just googled and found that the term means 50%. Appologies for using a wrong term for what is still a double re-election of Tony, and hence his policies, in the UK.

Actually, in traditional UK usage a “simple majority” means what you thought it meat (a “plurality” in US terms). In the USA it means what Google told you it meant, this American usage is also becoming more common in the UK

As we are discussing UK politics on a US based board, pick the definition you prefer

DanishDynamite · 10th May 2007, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

Actually, in traditional UK usage a “simple majority” means what you thought it meat (a “plurality” in US terms). In the USA it means what Google told you it meant, this American usage is also becoming more common in the UK

As we are discussing UK politics on a US based board, pick the definition you prefer

Thanks for confirming my understanding.

10th May 2007, 04:32 AM	#1
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Tony Blair - leaves 27th June The world's longest resignation is almost over, we now have a date for when Tony Blair will resign as Prime Minister, 27th June. (ETA 2007! )
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

10th May 2007, 04:52 AM	#3
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,192	Has he achieved his legacy checklist? Blue Peter and Songs of Praise wasn't it?
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

10th May 2007, 04:54 AM	#4
Ove Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Denmark Posts: 2,886	Hmmmm, the guy who had it all. Age, charisma, youth, votes and then blew it all away because he so stubbornly followed the little unintelligent man in the White House. I NEVER understood why a clever and intelligent man like Blair could be so blatantly ignorant.. Sad story.
	__________________ I am sitting here, completely surrounded by NO BEER..... (Onslow)

10th May 2007, 05:01 AM	#6
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	I don't think you can say he threw it all away, on many levels my opinion is that his 3 terms as PM have achieved a lot. (Albeit that elephant in the room does keep getting in the way a little bit!)
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

10th May 2007, 08:17 AM	#10
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet Would it be terribly cynical of me to suggest that there might be some reports/figures/information hitting the press today & tomorrow that may not show the government in an overly favourable manner? Today being a good day to bury bad news... Oh central bank interest rate up, inflation still on the up... nah of course not.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

10th May 2007, 04:50 AM	#2
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Didn't beat Maggie then.

10th May 2007, 05:00 AM	#5
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	He also failed miserably to capitalise on the London property boom, selling 1 Richmond Crescent (N1) for GBP 615,000 in 1997 and then having to pony up GBP 3,500,000 for 29 Connaught Square (W2) in 2004.

10th May 2007, 05:09 AM	#7
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,148	Originally Posted by Darat The world's longest resignation is almost over, we now have a date for when Tony Blair will resign as Prime Minister, 27th June. (ETA 2007! ) Would it be terribly cynical of me to suggest that there might be some reports/figures/information hitting the press today & tomorrow that may not show the government in an overly favourable manner? Today being a good day to bury bad news...

10th May 2007, 05:10 AM	#8
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,148	Originally Posted by Darat I don't think you can say he threw it all away, on many levels my opinion is that his 3 terms as PM have achieved a lot. (Albeit that elephant in the room does keep getting in the way a little bit!) Too early to assess his legacy - if anything comes of the loans for honours thing he could be remembered for reasons he will not like at all. Oh and you really shouldn't talk about Gordon like that!

10th May 2007, 05:31 AM	#9
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 11,826	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet Would it be terribly cynical of me to suggest that there might be some reports/figures/information hitting the press today & tomorrow that may not show the government in an overly favourable manner? Today being a good day to bury bad news... The Bank of England raised interest rates. Mortgage misery for millions! Hear the clang of factory gates shutting down for the last time! See exporters crippled by the strength of the pound!

10th May 2007, 09:30 AM	#11
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Totally co-incidentally of course: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6642339.stm I can think of a quick way ~~Gordon Brown~~ the next PM can save £5 billion! (If his or her Chancellor lets him or her of course...)
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

10th May 2007, 09:33 AM	#12
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Just been reading Ming Campbell's comment about the vicar's speech and noticed he wasn't pleased that Blair said Great Britain was the greatest nation. Now I'm not one for jingoism or overt nationalism but I would expect a PM of this country to at least tell everyone that Great Britain is the greatest nation?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

10th May 2007, 10:32 AM	#13
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,575	Originally Posted by Darat Totally co-incidentally of course: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6642339.stm I can think of a quick way ~~Gordon Brown~~ the next PM can save £5 billion! (If his or her Chancellor lets him or her of course...) With Blair gone who could credibly oppose Brown in that way?

10th May 2007, 01:32 PM	#14
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Elected to the top post three times in a row. Including being elected after 9/11. Like Bush, it is hard to see how a majority of the population doesn't share the blame for any perceived faults.

10th May 2007, 01:44 PM	#15
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite Elected to the top post three times in a row. Including being elected after 9/11. Like Bush, it is hard to see how a majority of the population doesn't share the blame for any perceived faults. I agree with you to a large extent - for instance if the country really was, at the time, against the invasion of Iraq it wouldn't have happened and since it did we do as population share the "blame" for that. However remember that the actual popular vote share in 1997 was only 43.2% 1997 General Election votes Labour 43.2% of the popular vote & 419 seats Tories : 30.7% of the popular vote & 165 seats Lib Dems: 16.8% of the popular vote & 28 seats 2001 General Election votes Labour: 43% of the vote - 413 seats Tories: 33% of the vote - 166 seats Lib Dems: 19% of the vote - 52 seats And for the 2005 General Election I'm going to quote from this site as I think it makes fascinating reading: Quote: Labour's percentage of votes - at 36% (down by 5% from 2001) - is the lowest any winning party has ever achieved. More people voted for the Conservatives in England than for Labour - but the Conservatives won 92 seats less than Labour within England (285 to 193). The Conservatives received 60,000 more votes than Labour in England. There was an overall turnout of 61% - up 2% from 2001. But this still means that 1/3rd of those registered to vote did not do so. More people opted not to vote (38.7%) than voted for Labour (36%). Labour's share of the total possible electorate was 22%. Labour got 55% of the seats but 36% of the votes cast The Conservatives got 30% of the seats but 33% of the votes cast The Liberal Democrats got 10% of the seats but 22% of the votes cast. Both the Electoral Reform Society and 'Make Votes Count' expressed their concern that democracy within the UK was being severely diluted by the continued use of the 'first-past-the-post' system. Quote: "The British first-past-the-post electoral system has reduced the general election to a travesty of democracy. How can any government back by one in four or five electors conceivably claim any sort of valid democratic mandate?" David Lipsey, 'Make Votes Count'
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

10th May 2007, 02:01 PM	#16
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by Darat I agree with you to a large extent - for instance if the country really was, at the time, against the invasion of Iraq it wouldn't have happened and since it did we do as population share the "blame" for that. However remember that the actual popular vote share in 1997 was only 43.2% 1997 General Election votes Labour 43.2% of the popular vote & 419 seats Tories : 30.7% of the popular vote & 165 seats Lib Dems: 16.8% of the popular vote & 28 seats 2001 General Election votes Labour: 43% of the vote - 413 seats Tories: 33% of the vote - 166 seats Lib Dems: 19% of the vote - 52 seats And for the 2005 General Election I'm going to quote from this site as I think it makes fascinating reading: I have argued extensively against the "first-past-the-post" type of democracy previously. Blair was, however, constantly reelected, even if only by a simple majority.

10th May 2007, 02:13 PM	#17
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by Darat Both the Electoral Reform Society and 'Make Votes Count' expressed their concern that democracy within the UK was being severely diluted by the continued use of the 'first-past-the-post' system. If we're using basically the same system which has been in place since the vote was given to 18, 19 and 20 year olds in the 1960's. How can continuing to use the same system for 40 odd years mean that democracy is now more dilute than it was previously, especially as changes have enfranchised, rather than disenfranchised people. FPTP may not be ideal, but it hasn't got any worse lately. And back to eth OP, has anyone heard if Blair plans to take the Chiltern Hundreds, or is he planning to do a Ted Heath and sulk on the back benches?
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

10th May 2007, 02:14 PM	#18
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	I was wondering if he'd even see out his term as an MP.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

10th May 2007, 02:17 PM	#19
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	Originally Posted by brodski If we're using basically the same system which has been in place since the vote was given to 18, 19 and 20 year olds in the 1960's. How can continuing to use the same system for 40 odd years mean that democracy is now more dilute than it was previously, especially as changes have enfranchised, rather than disenfranchised people. FPTP may not be ideal, but it hasn't got any worse lately. And back to eth OP, has anyone heard if Blair plans to take the Chiltern Hundreds, or is he planning to do a Ted Heath and sulk on the back benches? I think, when the percentage of people actually voting drops as low as it has done, that should be of more concern than the actual system - mind you to be honest I don't know what the turnout trend has been, I know we've had some low ones - but very low historically?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

10th May 2007, 02:19 PM	#20
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by Darat I was wondering if he'd even see out his term as an MP. That's what I was asking.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

10th May 2007, 02:21 PM	#21
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,793	I know - I was musing with you!
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

10th May 2007, 02:26 PM	#22
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by Darat I think, when the percentage of people actually voting drops as low as it has done, that should be of more concern than the actual system - mind you to be honest I don't know what the turnout trend has been, I know we've had some low ones - but very low historically? An interesting paper here (PDF warning) http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/papers/p106.pdf Aparently the 01 election had teh lowest turnout since 1918 (the paper is from 04) But teh paper concludes that this was due to a lack of effective opposition, or real choice between parties, rather than part of a devistating trend.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

10th May 2007, 02:34 PM	#23
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	I used to think that the expression "simple majority" meant the highest proportion. This is what New Labour won every time. I just googled and found that the term means 50%. Appologies for using a wrong term for what is still a double re-election of Tony, and hence his policies, in the UK.

10th May 2007, 02:51 PM	#24
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite I used to think that the expression "simple majority" meant the highest proportion. This is what New Labour won every time. I just googled and found that the term means 50%. Appologies for using a wrong term for what is still a double re-election of Tony, and hence his policies, in the UK. Actually, in traditional UK usage a “simple majority” means what you thought it meat (a “plurality” in US terms). In the USA it means what Google told you it meant, this American usage is also becoming more common in the UK As we are discussing UK politics on a US based board, pick the definition you prefer
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,086

10th May 2007, 03:16 PM	#25
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by brodski Actually, in traditional UK usage a “simple majority” means what you thought it meat (a “plurality” in US terms). In the USA it means what Google told you it meant, this American usage is also becoming more common in the UK As we are discussing UK politics on a US based board, pick the definition you prefer Thanks for confirming my understanding.