|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 9, 2017 7:58:22 GMT
Well this is going well  Please don't anyone tell him that Ruth Davidson is gay or he'll pull out his Scottish lesbo jokes  |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 8:47:31 GMT
Well this is going well Please don't anyone tell him that Ruth Davidson is gay or he'll pull out his Scottish lesbo jokes If Jim Davidson has made any jokes about a "Scottish lesbo"[these are your words and definitely not mine!], I will put them on here to show people what hypocrites you Tories are. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 9, 2017 11:27:58 GMT
This gross distortion of the facts you claim I've attempted care to point it out, I put up an article from buzzfed which states the background of the Tory candidate, made no other comment on him apart from pulling you up on your casually racist oh so mature implied sheep shagger jokes. This is not going well or reflecting we'll on you old bean. On the contrary, you've made a career on here telling lies, I'll give you just a few: 1.We'll not pay a Divorce Bill when we leave the E.U.. 2.Reducing the number of parliamentary seats isn't Tory gerrymandering of elections. Now, as for sheepshagging jokes. I'll give you a Jim Davidson joke from primetime t.v. at a comedy show in Llandudno: Q.What do you call a promiscuous Welshman? A.A shepherd. Now, which political party invited Mr Davidson to star at its party conference not once not twice but several times? Yes, the Conservative Party. As I said 'followyoudown' I don't accept comments from 1.A proven liar 2.A proven hypocrite O.K.? Even for you this is getting moronic, a career on the Oatcake, everyone knows only the admin get paid thousands per week for running this message board (this is a joke for everyone but Nicholas) 1. I've said legally we do not have to pay any exit Bill, the house of lords and European commission seem to back me on this, happy to review any evidence you provide to back up your argument. I've also said recently that the EU has now made it politically impossible for the UK to pay any large sum when previously before their posturing i'm sure we would have paid something for a quick and easy free trade deal. From memory at the start of this thread I said I expected we would pay something. 2. Tory decision was to to reduce number of seats and equalise number of voters for each MP, boundary changed as always are down to the Electoral commission as they are every 10 years or so when boundaries are withdrawn. If I understand correctly you want to identify yourself with Jim Davidson who many people would say was a racist, he's also a self confessed homophobe interestingly enough. You probably love his Chalky White stuff too ? As for attendance and bookings at the Tory party conference that's up to actual members of the Tory party to decide on but I wouldn't have booked him for the reasons above. So you haven't really proven anything apart from the fact you have absolutely no self awareness or sense of humour (in the original post I even put Daiversity instead of Diversity training ). As I said stop digging, it might be a fairly mild racial insult / stereotype but it is a racial insult / stereotype and it's just funny that Mr All leave voters are thicko's and racist can't take being pulled up on it. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 9, 2017 11:30:27 GMT
Well this is going well Please don't anyone tell him that Ruth Davidson is gay or he'll pull out his Scottish lesbo jokes If Jim Davidson has made any jokes about a "Scottish lesbo"[these are your words and definitely not mine!], I will put them on here to show people what hypocrites you Tories are. Rule 3 of the internet it's better to say nothing and let people think you are daft than type something out that confirms it |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 9, 2017 11:44:13 GMT
On the contrary, you've made a career on here telling lies, I'll give you just a few: 1.We'll not pay a Divorce Bill when we leave the E.U.. 2.Reducing the number of parliamentary seats isn't Tory gerrymandering of elections. Now, as for sheepshagging jokes. I'll give you a Jim Davidson joke from primetime t.v. at a comedy show in Llandudno: Q.What do you call a promiscuous Welshman? A.A shepherd. Now, which political party invited Mr Davidson to star at its party conference not once not twice but several times? Yes, the Conservative Party. As I said 'followyoudown' I don't accept comments from 1.A proven liar 2.A proven hypocrite O.K.? Even for you this is getting moronic, a career on the Oatcake, everyone knows only the admin get paid thousands per week for running this message board (this is a joke for everyone but Nicholas) 1. I've said legally we do not have to pay any exit Bill, the house of lords and European commission seem to back me on this, happy to review any evidence you provide to back up your argument. I've also said recently that the EU has now made it politically impossible for the UK to pay any large sum when previously before their posturing i'm sure we would have paid something for a quick and easy free trade deal. From memory at the start of this thread I said I expected we would pay something. 2. Tory decision was to to reduce number of seats and equalise number of voters for each MP, boundary changed as always are down to the Electoral commission as they are every 10 years or so when boundaries are withdrawn. If I understand correctly you want to identify yourself with Jim Davidson who many people would say was a racist, he's also a self confessed homophobe interestingly enough. You probably love his Chalky White stuff too ? As for attendance and bookings at the Tory party conference that's up to actual members of the Tory party to decide on but I wouldn't have booked him for the reasons above. So you haven't really proven anything apart from the fact you have absolutely no self awareness or sense of humour (in the original post I even put Daiversity instead of Diversity training ). As I said stop digging, it might be a fairly mild racial insult / stereotype but it is a racial insult / stereotype and it's just funny that Mr All leave voters are thicko's and racist can't take being pulled up on it. Not everyone's cup of tea, but I have never seen this man defeated in logic/ an argument , particularly on democracy. FYD, He gives a good example in this speech about the 'unrepresentiveness' of the EU, which relates to your point 2. He also makes the point that the European Court of "Justice (🤡)" is truly a POLITICAL court, not neutral. If you don't want to hear his whole, well argued, speech, the bit about rotten boroughs starts at 3.45 |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 11:50:12 GMT
If Jim Davidson has made any jokes about a "Scottish lesbo"[these are your words and definitely not mine!], I will put them on here to show people what hypocrites you Tories are. Rule 3 of the internet it's better to say nothing and let people think you are daft than type something out that confirms it I've shared offices with Tory colleagues in different offices, different workplaces so I got told various bits and bobs. Apparently, at one Tory Party Conference bash, Jim Davidson told this joke about the imprisoned millionaire Lord Archer:"Lord Archer is that rich he doesn't understand the value of small change but he does now! Because when he went into prison his anus was the size of a sixpence but now he's left it's the size of a fifty pence piece." The assembled Tories apparently found this hilariously funny! So, 'followyoudown' I don't take lessons in political correctness from Tories! |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 11:54:19 GMT
On the contrary, you've made a career on here telling lies, I'll give you just a few: 1.We'll not pay a Divorce Bill when we leave the E.U.. 2.Reducing the number of parliamentary seats isn't Tory gerrymandering of elections. Now, as for sheepshagging jokes. I'll give you a Jim Davidson joke from primetime t.v. at a comedy show in Llandudno: Q.What do you call a promiscuous Welshman? A.A shepherd. Now, which political party invited Mr Davidson to star at its party conference not once not twice but several times? Yes, the Conservative Party. As I said 'followyoudown' I don't accept comments from 1.A proven liar 2.A proven hypocrite O.K.? Even for you this is getting moronic, a career on the Oatcake, everyone knows only the admin get paid thousands per week for running this message board (this is a joke for everyone but Nicholas) 1. I've said legally we do not have to pay any exit Bill, the house of lords and European commission seem to back me on this, happy to review any evidence you provide to back up your argument. I've also said recently that the EU has now made it politically impossible for the UK to pay any large sum when previously before their posturing i'm sure we would have paid something for a quick and easy free trade deal. From memory at the start of this thread I said I expected we would pay something. 2. Tory decision was to to reduce number of seats and equalise number of voters for each MP, boundary changed as always are down to the Electoral commission as they are every 10 years or so when boundaries are withdrawn. If I understand correctly you want to identify yourself with Jim Davidson who many people would say was a racist, he's also a self confessed homophobe interestingly enough. You probably love his Chalky White stuff too ? As for attendance and bookings at the Tory party conference that's up to actual members of the Tory party to decide on but I wouldn't have booked him for the reasons above. So you haven't really proven anything apart from the fact you have absolutely no self awareness or sense of humour (in the original post I even put Daiversity instead of Diversity training ). As I said stop digging, it might be a fairly mild racial insult / stereotype but it is a racial insult / stereotype and it's just funny that Mr All leave voters are thicko's and racist can't take being pulled up on it. You're lying again! The decision to reduce the number of constituencies is made by the party in government not by The Electoral Commission. This was pointed out to you! This makes you a proven serial liar! |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on May 9, 2017 12:01:04 GMT
Even for you this is getting moronic, a career on the Oatcake, everyone knows only the admin get paid thousands per week for running this message board (this is a joke for everyone but Nicholas) 1. I've said legally we do not have to pay any exit Bill, the house of lords and European commission seem to back me on this, happy to review any evidence you provide to back up your argument. I've also said recently that the EU has now made it politically impossible for the UK to pay any large sum when previously before their posturing i'm sure we would have paid something for a quick and easy free trade deal. From memory at the start of this thread I said I expected we would pay something. 2. Tory decision was to to reduce number of seats and equalise number of voters for each MP, boundary changed as always are down to the Electoral commission as they are every 10 years or so when boundaries are withdrawn. If I understand correctly you want to identify yourself with Jim Davidson who many people would say was a racist, he's also a self confessed homophobe interestingly enough. You probably love his Chalky White stuff too ? As for attendance and bookings at the Tory party conference that's up to actual members of the Tory party to decide on but I wouldn't have booked him for the reasons above. So you haven't really proven anything apart from the fact you have absolutely no self awareness or sense of humour (in the original post I even put Daiversity instead of Diversity training ). As I said stop digging, it might be a fairly mild racial insult / stereotype but it is a racial insult / stereotype and it's just funny that Mr All leave voters are thicko's and racist can't take being pulled up on it. You're lying again! The decision to reduce the number of constituencies is made by the party in government not by The Electoral Commission. This was pointed out to you! This makes you a proven serial liar! The other vote rigging idea from the Tories is after this election to give votes to people who left the country 15 years ago, how many of these are going to be anything other than Tories the only reason they couldn't get it through by this election is they ran out of time on the Act of parliament. Also English votes for English bills will mean that they have control of parliament for years to come and lead to a break up of the union |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 9, 2017 12:02:20 GMT
Even for you this is getting moronic, a career on the Oatcake, everyone knows only the admin get paid thousands per week for running this message board (this is a joke for everyone but Nicholas) 1. I've said legally we do not have to pay any exit Bill, the house of lords and European commission seem to back me on this, happy to review any evidence you provide to back up your argument. I've also said recently that the EU has now made it politically impossible for the UK to pay any large sum when previously before their posturing i'm sure we would have paid something for a quick and easy free trade deal. From memory at the start of this thread I said I expected we would pay something. 2. Tory decision was to to reduce number of seats and equalise number of voters for each MP, boundary changed as always are down to the Electoral commission as they are every 10 years or so when boundaries are withdrawn. If I understand correctly you want to identify yourself with Jim Davidson who many people would say was a racist, he's also a self confessed homophobe interestingly enough. You probably love his Chalky White stuff too ? As for attendance and bookings at the Tory party conference that's up to actual members of the Tory party to decide on but I wouldn't have booked him for the reasons above. So you haven't really proven anything apart from the fact you have absolutely no self awareness or sense of humour (in the original post I even put Daiversity instead of Diversity training ). As I said stop digging, it might be a fairly mild racial insult / stereotype but it is a racial insult / stereotype and it's just funny that Mr All leave voters are thicko's and racist can't take being pulled up on it. You're lying again! The decision to reduce the number of constituencies is made by the party in government not by The Electoral Commission. This was pointed out to you! This makes you a proven serial liar! Fuck me you can't even read what I wrote correctly, seriously you are making yourself look a fool I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be but I said Tories decided to reduce number of seats (mps) so each MP has a similar sized electorate, the Electoral commission than draws up the new boundaries as they do every time there is a review / change. Proved nothing again well done ! |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 9, 2017 12:08:55 GMT
Rule 3 of the internet it's better to say nothing and let people think you are daft than type something out that confirms it I've shared offices with Tory colleagues in different offices, different workplaces so I got told various bits and bobs. Apparently, at one Tory Party Conference bash, Jim Davidson told this joke about the imprisoned millionaire Lord Archer:"Lord Archer is that rich he doesn't understand the value of small change but he does now! Because when he went into prison his anus was the size of a sixpence but now he's left it's the size of a fifty pence piece." The assembled Tories apparently found this hilariously funny! So, 'followyoudown' I don't take lessons in political correctness from Tories! So let me get this right because some Tories you know laughed at political incorrect jokes you can write off the views of anyone else who ever votes Tory. 1000% comedy genius from Nicky there, this really is shedding light on your previous postings and thoughts with logic like that, it really isn't going well for you |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 12:16:52 GMT
You're lying again! The decision to reduce the number of constituencies is made by the party in government not by The Electoral Commission. This was pointed out to you! This makes you a proven serial liar! Fuck me you can't even read what I wrote correctly, seriously you are making yourself look a fool I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be but I said Tories decided to reduce number of seats (mps) so each MP has a similar sized electorate, the Electoral commission than draws up the new boundaries as they do every time there is a review / change. Proved nothing again well done ! You're lying for the umpteenth time! We had a constituency of a uniform size for the Referendum i.e. a size of one. We've had different numbers of M.P.s in the past 630, 645 et al. Historically, to support the Union and because of the geographical spread, Scotland and Wales were over represented. However, because of devolution this over-representation is being reduced. But the number of constituencies in England is falling too. The reason is simply that Tory voting high turnout areas will be added to marginal seats making them far more likely to vote Tory. Probably the greatest anomaly is the Isle of Wight but that's because the islanders want a single constituency. Therefore the voters in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal are under represented but that's nothing to do with Labour! |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 12:19:42 GMT
I've shared offices with Tory colleagues in different offices, different workplaces so I got told various bits and bobs. Apparently, at one Tory Party Conference bash, Jim Davidson told this joke about the imprisoned millionaire Lord Archer:"Lord Archer is that rich he doesn't understand the value of small change but he does now! Because when he went into prison his anus was the size of a sixpence but now he's left it's the size of a fifty pence piece." The assembled Tories apparently found this hilariously funny! So, 'followyoudown' I don't take lessons in political correctness from Tories! So let me get this right because some Tories you know laughed at political incorrect jokes you can write off the views of anyone else who ever votes Tory. 1000% comedy genius from Nicky there, this really is shedding light on your previous postings and thoughts with logic like that, it really isn't going well for you I'm just sharing some Tory humour at official Tory Party Conference events with other posters. With Jim Davidson and Ken Barlow as your celeb supporters you just need Rolf Harris for the hat-trick?  |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 9, 2017 12:24:41 GMT
Fuck me you can't even read what I wrote correctly, seriously you are making yourself look a fool I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be but I said Tories decided to reduce number of seats (mps) so each MP has a similar sized electorate, the Electoral commission than draws up the new boundaries as they do every time there is a review / change. Proved nothing again well done ! You're lying for the umpteenth time! We had a constituency of a uniform size for the Referendum i.e. a size of one. We've had different numbers of M.P.s in the past 630, 645 et al. Historically, to support the Union and because of the geographical spread, Scotland and Wales were over represented. However, because of devolution this over-representation is being reduced. But the number of constituencies in England is falling too. The reason is simply that Tory voting high turnout areas will be added to marginal seats making them far more likely to vote Tory. Probably the greatest anomaly is the Isle of Wight but that's because the islanders want a single constituency. Therefore the voters in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal are under represented but that's nothing to do with Labour! Just saying someone is lying is getting very boring and childish especially when you can't back up. Decision to cut MP's was taken by Cameron after the expenses scandal to cut costs. The decision on positioning of boundaries is taken by the independent electoral commission. Boy are you having a bad day |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 9, 2017 12:26:30 GMT
So let me get this right because some Tories you know laughed at political incorrect jokes you can write off the views of anyone else who ever votes Tory. 1000% comedy genius from Nicky there, this really is shedding light on your previous postings and thoughts with logic like that, it really isn't going well for you I'm just sharing some Tory humour at official Tory Party Conference events with other posters. With Jim Davidson and Ken Barlow as your celeb supporters you just need Rolf Harris for the hat-trick? I think Labour have the Rolf Harris vote stitched up as evidenced in Rotherham etc |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 12:32:42 GMT
You're lying for the umpteenth time! We had a constituency of a uniform size for the Referendum i.e. a size of one. We've had different numbers of M.P.s in the past 630, 645 et al. Historically, to support the Union and because of the geographical spread, Scotland and Wales were over represented. However, because of devolution this over-representation is being reduced. But the number of constituencies in England is falling too. The reason is simply that Tory voting high turnout areas will be added to marginal seats making them far more likely to vote Tory. Probably the greatest anomaly is the Isle of Wight but that's because the islanders want a single constituency. Therefore the voters in a Tory/Lib Dem marginal are under represented but that's nothing to do with Labour! Just saying someone is lying is getting very boring and childish especially when you can't back up. Decision to cut MP's was taken by Cameron after the expenses scandal to cut costs. The decision on positioning of boundaries is taken by the independent electoral commission. Boy are you having bad day Again, you are lying! Cutting costs? Another excuse from the lying Tories! Why is something that occurred over decades ago and has finished, influence the number of M.P.s in parliament now? We're bringing back powers from Brussels to London thereby increasing the workload of M.P.s. Furthermore, the Electoral Commission will reduce the number of Stoke/Newcastle from 4 to 3. How is cutting an areas M.P.s by 25% going to help Stoke/Newcastle? The Tories want to emasculate/marginalise areas poorer areas to strengthen their grip on power. It's got nothing to do with cutting costs! |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on May 9, 2017 12:33:32 GMT
Though the subject is unlikely to quicken voters’ pulses, it is crucial to the outcome of the next general election. The review, which is coupled with a reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600, is expected to cost Labour around 30 seats (out of 232) and the Liberal Democrats around four (out of eight). It was for this reason that the two parties combined in the last parliament to delay the review until after the 2015 election.
But empowered by their victory, the Conservatives have resurrected it. Had the alternative boundaries been in place at the last election, they would have won a majority of around 44 as opposed to one of 12.
|
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on May 9, 2017 12:39:16 GMT
Theresa May could win 2020 election with majority of 100 as Labour face crushing defeat from 'unfair' boundary changes
Labour face electoral disaster as boundary changes cull MPs
Theresa May would win 100-strong majority at 2020 election
Labour would have lowest number of MPs since 1920s
From the Torygraph time to stop them now
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 12:39:17 GMT
Though the subject is unlikely to quicken voters’ pulses, it is crucial to the outcome of the next general election. The review, which is coupled with a reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600, is expected to cost Labour around 30 seats (out of 232) and the Liberal Democrats around four (out of eight). It was for this reason that the two parties combined in the last parliament to delay the review until after the 2015 election. But empowered by their victory, the Conservatives have resurrected it. Had the alternative boundaries been in place at the last election, they would have won a majority of around 44 as opposed to one of 12. This analysis is correct. But the Tories got 37% of the vote on a turnout ca.70% so, they would have an overall majority with just 1in4 of eligible voters voting for them? Who thinks this is democracy? I don't! |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on May 9, 2017 12:44:21 GMT
Though the subject is unlikely to quicken voters’ pulses, it is crucial to the outcome of the next general election. The review, which is coupled with a reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600, is expected to cost Labour around 30 seats (out of 232) and the Liberal Democrats around four (out of eight). It was for this reason that the two parties combined in the last parliament to delay the review until after the 2015 election. But empowered by their victory, the Conservatives have resurrected it. Had the alternative boundaries been in place at the last election, they would have won a majority of around 44 as opposed to one of 12. This analysis is correct. But the Tories got 37% of the vote on a turnout ca.70% so, they would have an overall majority with just 1in4 of eligible voters voting for them? Who thinks this is democracy? I don't! If your figures are correct and I cant be bothered checking them it means 63% out of the 70% voted against them so on your analysis they should not have any majority at all !!! so its only a democracy if you say it is what a joke!! |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 9, 2017 13:00:05 GMT
Just saying someone is lying is getting very boring and childish especially when you can't back up. Decision to cut MP's was taken by Cameron after the expenses scandal to cut costs. The decision on positioning of boundaries is taken by the independent electoral commission. Boy are you having bad day Again, you are lying! Cutting costs? Another excuse from the lying Tories! Why is something that occurred over decades ago and has finished, influence the number of M.P.s in parliament now? We're bringing back powers from Brussels to London thereby increasing the workload of M.P.s. Furthermore, the Electoral Commission will reduce the number of Stoke/Newcastle from 4 to 3. How is cutting an areas M.P.s by 25% going to help Stoke/Newcastle? The Tories want to emasculate/marginalise areas poorer areas to strengthen their grip on power. It's got nothing to do with cutting costs! Here's just one article from the Tory supporting independent proving yet again you can't differentiate between your elbow and your arse, the electoral commission is an independent body who are always responsible for the redrawing and implementation of boundary changes to claim the Tories somehow knew the outcome of the review beforehand is your usual trademark spurious bollocks  |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 13:06:03 GMT
Again, you are lying! Cutting costs? Another excuse from the lying Tories! Why is something that occurred over decades ago and has finished, influence the number of M.P.s in parliament now? We're bringing back powers from Brussels to London thereby increasing the workload of M.P.s. Furthermore, the Electoral Commission will reduce the number of Stoke/Newcastle from 4 to 3. How is cutting an areas M.P.s by 25% going to help Stoke/Newcastle? The Tories want to emasculate/marginalise areas poorer areas to strengthen their grip on power. It's got nothing to do with cutting costs! Here's just one article from the Tory supporting independent proving yet again you can't differentiate between your elbow and your arse, the electoral commission is an independent body who are always responsible for the redrawing and implementation of boundary changes to claim the Tories somehow knew the outcome of the review beforehand is your usual trademark spurious bollocks The Independent says: "Some[Tory M.P.s] had hoped the plans would be abandoned following their election victory, but the Prime Minister has signalled his determination to deliver on a promise in the party’s manifesto." As I said, the decision to reduce the number of seats from 650 to 600 is a Tory one. We know The Electoral Commission draw the boundaries and invite comments/suggestions from all interested parties. But the initial decision to reduce the number of M.P.s is a TORY ONE ONLY which was why it was in your 2015 manifesto! Are you that fick you can't comprehend your own 'evidence'? |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 9, 2017 13:44:35 GMT
Cobblers.
At 650 the UK has the highest number of MP's than any other Parliament in the EU.
Italy 630, Germany 622, France 577 etc.
The second house is even worse; Italian Senate 315, German Council 69, French Senate 348, House of Lords 786.
Cameron decided to cut costs.
The decision was to make each constituency around the 70,000 - 75,000 voters mark and the independent Boundaries Commission have been drawing up the new map.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 13:58:01 GMT
Cobblers. At 650 the UK has the highest number of MP's than any other Parliament in the EU. Italy 630, Germany 622, France 577 etc. The second house is even worse; Italian Senate 315, German Council 69, French Senate 348, House of Lords 786. Cameron decided to cut costs. The decision was to make each constituency around the 70,000 - 75,000 voters mark and the independent Boundaries Commission have been drawing up the new map. The voter per constituency is similar in Italy to the U.K. as it is essential to take the number of voters into account. The House of Lords still has inheritance peers plus Cameron's cronies. Everyone does agree the HoL needs reform. It is important to take into account the M.E.P.s Germany, France, Italy have. We'll soon have none. So, if you take the M.P.s+M.E.P.s per country we'll have one of the lowest numbers per voter when our M.E.P.s return to the U.K.. Currrent M.E.P.s:Germany 99, France 74, Italy 73. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 9, 2017 14:08:31 GMT
The Independent says: "Some[Tory M.P.s] had hoped the plans would be abandoned following their election victory, but the Prime Minister has signalled his determination to deliver on a promise in the party’s manifesto." As I said, the decision to reduce the number of seats from 650 to 600 is a Tory one. We know The Electoral Commission draw the boundaries and invite comments/suggestions from all interested parties. But the initial decision to reduce the number of M.P.s is a TORY ONE ONLY which was why it was in your 2015 manifesto! Are you that fick you can't comprehend your own 'evidence'? Jesus its like Groundhog Day with you, in every post I made I said it was a Tory decision to cut the number of seats, are you that thick I have to put it in every post in case you forget I mentioned it in the previous posts. I've given you an article showing this alleged claim of Tory gerrymandering by you is rubbish as they did not know the outcome of the review of the boundaries by the independent electoral commission before it was undertaken. And by the way judging by predicted results for this election its clear this boundary changes will affect Tory MPs far more than any (remaining) Labour MP's  . |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 14:25:23 GMT
The Independent says: "Some[Tory M.P.s] had hoped the plans would be abandoned following their election victory, but the Prime Minister has signalled his determination to deliver on a promise in the party’s manifesto." As I said, the decision to reduce the number of seats from 650 to 600 is a Tory one. We know The Electoral Commission draw the boundaries and invite comments/suggestions from all interested parties. But the initial decision to reduce the number of M.P.s is a TORY ONE ONLY which was why it was in your 2015 manifesto! Are you that fick you can't comprehend your own 'evidence'? Jesus its like Groundhog Day with you, in every post I made I said it was a Tory decision to cut the number of seats, are you that thick I have to put it in every post in case you forget I mentioned it in the previous posts. I've given you an article showing this alleged claim of Tory gerrymandering by you is rubbish as they did not know the outcome of the review of the boundaries by the independent electoral commission before it was undertaken. And by the way judging by predicted results for this election its clear this boundary changes will affect Tory MPs far more than any (remaining) Labour MP's . But we do know what the Boundary Commission has proposed and academics have analysed what would have happened if the new boundaries had been in force! The idea that reducing the number of M.P.s from 650 to 600 inevitably means 1.bigger, more varied constituencies or 2.an urban area losing an M.P. as in Stoke/Newcastle. So, academics know that just the reduction of M.P.s will work to the Tories advantage e.g. more middle class, rural voters get added into constituencies thereby making them more Tory. That's why tax dodging Cameron proposed it! Either you're not very bright or you are being deliberately being deceitful, I think it is the latter? |
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on May 9, 2017 14:29:58 GMT
So let me get this right because some Tories you know laughed at political incorrect jokes you can write off the views of anyone else who ever votes Tory. 1000% comedy genius from Nicky there, this really is shedding light on your previous postings and thoughts with logic like that, it really isn't going well for you I'm just sharing some Tory humour at official Tory Party Conference events with other posters. With Jim Davidson and Ken Barlow as your celeb supporters you just need Rolf Harris for the hat-trick? Russell Brand !, Eddie Lizzard !, Bob Geldoff ! |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 9, 2017 14:52:44 GMT
Jesus its like Groundhog Day with you, in every post I made I said it was a Tory decision to cut the number of seats, are you that thick I have to put it in every post in case you forget I mentioned it in the previous posts. I've given you an article showing this alleged claim of Tory gerrymandering by you is rubbish as they did not know the outcome of the review of the boundaries by the independent electoral commission before it was undertaken. And by the way judging by predicted results for this election its clear this boundary changes will affect Tory MPs far more than any (remaining) Labour MP's . But we do know what the Boundary Commission has proposed and academics have analysed what would have happened if the new boundaries had been in force! The idea that reducing the number of M.P.s from 650 to 600 inevitably means 1.bigger, more varied constituencies or 2.an urban area losing an M.P. as in Stoke/Newcastle. So, academics know that just the reduction of M.P.s will work to the Tories advantage e.g. more middle class, rural voters get added into constituencies thereby making them more Tory. That's why tax dodging Cameron proposed it! Either you're not very bright or you are being deliberately being deceitful, I think it is the latter? Your thinking is the problem as always. You know afterwards the outcome proposed, to say it was some elaborate plan in advance to fix future elections in favour of the Tories is just your usual made up lies, as Roger and I have told you the reasons were to make constituencies more even and save money. Anyway Jeremy's leadership of the Labour party makes such matters irrelevant, perhaps worry about this in 2026 or 2031 |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on May 9, 2017 15:01:21 GMT
Cobblers. At 650 the UK has the highest number of MP's than any other Parliament in the EU. Italy 630, Germany 622, France 577 etc. The second house is even worse; Italian Senate 315, German Council 69, French Senate 348, House of Lords 786. Cameron decided to cut costs. The decision was to make each constituency around the 70,000 - 75,000 voters mark and the independent Boundaries Commission have been drawing up the new map. What a load of bs you talk and its fine for you to quote other European countries when it suits you good for someone who wants nothing to do with Europe I also suppose if this was a labour plan you'd be against it if you lost seats that's called being two faced |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 9, 2017 15:03:01 GMT
Cobblers. At 650 the UK has the highest number of MP's than any other Parliament in the EU. Italy 630, Germany 622, France 577 etc. The second house is even worse; Italian Senate 315, German Council 69, French Senate 348, House of Lords 786. Cameron decided to cut costs. The decision was to make each constituency around the 70,000 - 75,000 voters mark and the independent Boundaries Commission have been drawing up the new map. The voter per constituency is similar in Italy to the U.K. as it is essential to take the number of voters into account. The House of Lords still has inheritance peers plus Cameron's cronies. Everyone does agree the HoL needs reform. It is important to take into account the M.E.P.s Germany, France, Italy have. We'll soon have none. So, if you take the M.P.s+M.E.P.s per country we'll have one of the lowest numbers per voter when our M.E.P.s return to the U.K.. Currrent M.E.P.s:Germany 99, France 74, Italy 73. There are more Lib Dem peers than any other party and Blair pumped his fair share into the second house as well. It needs cutting in half and then some. I assume they divided the total number of potential voters by 600 and that came to 70-75K voters. The Boundaries Commission have done the rest. The MEP's serve another parliament. We won't need any after we leave, other countries will. Not sure what MEP's have to do with UK constituency boundaries. Have you been on the sherry? :-) |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on May 9, 2017 15:07:56 GMT
The voter per constituency is similar in Italy to the U.K. as it is essential to take the number of voters into account. The House of Lords still has inheritance peers plus Cameron's cronies. Everyone does agree the HoL needs reform. It is important to take into account the M.E.P.s Germany, France, Italy have. We'll soon have none. So, if you take the M.P.s+M.E.P.s per country we'll have one of the lowest numbers per voter when our M.E.P.s return to the U.K.. Currrent M.E.P.s:Germany 99, France 74, Italy 73. There are more Lib Dem peers than any other party and Blair pumped his fair share into the second house as well. It needs cutting in half and then some. I assume they divided the total number of potential voters by 600 and that came to 70-75K voters. The Boundaries Commission have done the rest. The MEP's serve another parliament. We won't need any after we leave, other countries will. Not sure what MEP's have to do with UK constituency boundaries. Have you been on the sherry? :-) Is this because the rich are not in control and that annoys you |
|
. 
