Sooky Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152 Cameron had enough. By -election in Witney. George Osborne's seat is going to be taken away by the Boundary Commission... (Though of course this would require him resigning from his seat now to fight a by-election, so probably not!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capybara Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 minute ago, jmothecat said: Michael Fallon 'the difficulty with the shadow defence minister has got is my Defence ministers don't know who he is.' Not really answering the questions re Clyde built ships, except to dig re indie ref. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37342152 Cameron had enough. By -election in Witney. If the PM is still stalling on triggering brexit then the kippers will throw everything at this seat. *If they have elected a leader of their own and stopped the infighting that's been going on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 3 hours ago, mjw said: If the PM is still stalling on triggering brexit then the kippers will throw everything at this seat. *If they have elected a leader of their own and stopped the infighting that's been going on. Witney voted Remain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: Witney voted Remain. "I will always love EU". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Granny Danger said: "I will always love EU". Okay that one made me laugh. Well done, Old Timer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Boundary changes piling on more bad news for Labour. Apparently under the review had the previous election gone the exact same way Labour would have been the biggest losers with 28 seats lost. Lib Dems would lose 4, Greens 1 and Tories 10. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Yeah, who saw this coming? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Yeah, who saw this coming? Pretty much everyone. It's distressing nonetheless though. It's already looking like it's going to be tough to win in 2020 and this makes things tougher. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Don't the current boundaries advantage Labour? i.e. they were gerrymandered to give inner city constituencies fewer people under a Labour govt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 The SNP are expected to be given the chairmanship of the new International Trade Committee at Westminster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Don't the current boundaries advantage Labour? i.e. they were gerrymandered to give inner city constituencies fewer people under a Labour govt. Aye. Labour leaning constituencies are generally smaller, however the argument has been that the more deprived and urban constituencies have a far higher workload than say Surrey South West where Jeremy Hunt represents. Ironically I will get more of a chance to have a Labour MP under the proposed changes with Ashington being put in with Berwick. From Labour being a distant third in the old seat they'll probably be favourites in a Tory/Labour marginal now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 5 hours ago, jmothecat said: Pretty much everyone. It's distressing nonetheless though. It's already looking like it's going to be tough to win in 2020 and this makes things tougher. It's been on the statute book for five years - I'd like to think that you'd have got over any distress a while ago. It doesn't "make things tougher" - things were already tough. This change was already a factor in any long-term plan the Party chose to follow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 It's been on the statute book for five years - I'd like to think that you'd have got over any distress a while ago. It doesn't "make things tougher" - things were already tough. This change was already a factor in any long-term plan the Party chose to follow. Now we've seen what the Boundary changes look like and we can actually calculate the difficulty it adds for us. Are you seriously not bothered by this simply because we knew it was coming? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Now if only they would start reducing the numbers in the HoL. They number far more than the MPs before these changes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Now if only they would start reducing the numbers in the HoL. They number far more than the MPs before these changes. It is a bit of a slap in the face. 50 fewer elected representatives in the people (largely lost from poor inner city areas) but 260 more unelected Lords. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 3 hours ago, jmothecat said: Now we've seen what the Boundary changes look like and we can actually calculate the difficulty it adds for us. Are you seriously not bothered by this simply because we knew it was coming? Well it's taking away Labour's advantage really, not adding an extra obstacle. Effectively, it's increased the size of the barrel, but whilst Labour are intent on taking aim at their own feet, what difference does it really make? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Well it's taking away Labour's advantage really, not adding an extra obstacle. Effectively, it's increased the size of the barrel, but whilst Labour are intent on taking aim at their own feet, what difference does it really make? It makes a difference because it reduces the number of democratically elected MPs (whilst the government stays just as large and the Lords continues to increase), it reduces the number of MPs in deprived areas where MPs are more vital. It also has only taken into account people registered to vote, rather than those eligible, and even then using outdated figures which ignores 2 million people who are now registered to vote but weren't at the time.This is probably the first thing all summer that everyone in the Labour Party, from the Corbynistas to the Blairites, are unhappy with. Somewhat surprised that White Rose Killie, a member of the Labour Party, isn't unhappy about this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 It makes a difference because it reduces the number of democratically elected MPs (whilst the government stays just as large and the Lords continues to increase), it reduces the number of MPs in deprived areas where MPs are more vital. It also has only taken into account people registered to vote, rather than those eligible, and even then using outdated figures which ignores 2 million people who are now registered to vote but weren't at the time. This is probably the first thing all summer that everyone in the Labour Party, from the Corbynistas to the Blairites, are unhappy with. Somewhat surprised that White Rose Killie, a member of the Labour Party, isn't unhappy about this. Who the hell said I wasn't unhappy about it? I've been banging on for years to get people to register, as this is the most important part of the whole affair. The legislation was passed five years ago, jmo, and it didn't take Party membership to motivate me. You'll be warning me about TTIP next... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 1 hour ago, jmothecat said: It makes a difference because it reduces the number of democratically elected MPs (whilst the government stays just as large and the Lords continues to increase), it reduces the number of MPs in deprived areas where MPs are more vital. It also has only taken into account people registered to vote, rather than those eligible, and even then using outdated figures which ignores 2 million people who are now registered to vote but weren't at the time. This is probably the first thing all summer that everyone in the Labour Party, from the Corbynistas to the Blairites, are unhappy with. Somewhat surprised that White Rose Killie, a member of the Labour Party, isn't unhappy about this. When Labour are in they rig things to suit them better. The Tories do the same. Labour had 13 years to do something about the Lords, they did nothing. Don't bother pretending anyone's actually bothered about deprived areas more than making future elections more easy/difficult to win. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.