|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 15:09:56 GMT
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  Nobody's made up any lies on this side of the aisle. You're a consummate confidence trickster as all academics are agreed the reduction in the number of M.P.s from 650 to 600 would be bound to help the Tories. I'll give you an example. The Boundary Commission follows certain rules re:local government boundaries and other criteria. To increase the number of voters per seat then Stoke/Newcastle lose a Labour M.P.. The Tories might see Stone/Moorlands merge and they too might lose a seat. However, the surplus voters going into Stafford would inevitably be from rural villages in Stone and be heavily Tory. Therefore the marginal seat of Stafford is turned into a seat Tory seat like Lichfield. If this is replicated across Britain, Labour would have to be several points ahead of the Tories to win a general election. The idea Cameron hasn't worked it all out beforehand is sheer Tory lies, yet again! |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 15:13:09 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? :-) But some of the workload of the M.E.P.s will be transferred to the HoC(haven't you heard of 'Brexit'?). Clearly, your arithmetic doesn't take account of this. If you check German M.Ps and M.E.P.s will be larger than ours! |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 9, 2017 16:01:12 GMT
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 Nobody's made up any lies on this side of the aisle. You're a consummate confidence trickster as all academics are agreed the reduction in the number of M.P.s from 650 to 600 would be bound to help the Tories. I'll give you an example. The Boundary Commission follows certain rules re:local government boundaries and other criteria. To increase the number of voters per seat then Stoke/Newcastle lose a Labour M.P.. The Tories might see Stone/Moorlands merge and they too might lose a seat. However, the surplus voters going into Stafford would inevitably be from rural villages in Stone and be heavily Tory. Therefore the marginal seat of Stafford is turned into a seat Tory seat like Lichfield. If this is replicated across Britain, Labour would have to be several points ahead of the Tories to win a general election. The idea Cameron hasn't worked it all out beforehand is sheer Tory lies, yet again! If everyone was agreed that this would benefit the Tories, why were all these Tory MP's worried about losing their seats or is the Independent part of this elaborate plan  You can just make up stuff if you like to suit your argument but you would perhaps be better not to choose a town I grew up in like Stone (epic fail). Stone already includes part of the Moorlands has an electorate of almost 67k at 2010 and will probably already be at the 70-75k mark now, similarly Stafford had an electorate of almost 70k at 2010 and again would be at the 70-75k level now. Stafford incidentally a marginal seat 9k Tory majority !!!! these might be marginal for Jezza but not so much for Theresa  . Stafford has only been Labour in the Blair years since 1945 and he was supposedly a Tory anyway according to some  Labour has to be several points ahead to win an election you say well generally that's how it works old bean, I do like the idea Cameron had worked it all out must have been some sort of genius to be able to model population changes, voting intentions and the decisions of the boundary commission |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 9, 2017 16:08:47 GMT
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? :-) But some of the workload of the M.E.P.s will be transferred to the HoC(haven't you heard of 'Brexit'?). Clearly, your arithmetic doesn't take account of this. If you check German M.Ps and M.E.P.s will be larger than ours! The MEP's will be employed until we leave then we don't need MEP's because we've left the EU. Or have I missed something? |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 16:19:41 GMT
Nobody's made up any lies on this side of the aisle. You're a consummate confidence trickster as all academics are agreed the reduction in the number of M.P.s from 650 to 600 would be bound to help the Tories. I'll give you an example. The Boundary Commission follows certain rules re:local government boundaries and other criteria. To increase the number of voters per seat then Stoke/Newcastle lose a Labour M.P.. The Tories might see Stone/Moorlands merge and they too might lose a seat. However, the surplus voters going into Stafford would inevitably be from rural villages in Stone and be heavily Tory. Therefore the marginal seat of Stafford is turned into a seat Tory seat like Lichfield. If this is replicated across Britain, Labour would have to be several points ahead of the Tories to win a general election. The idea Cameron hasn't worked it all out beforehand is sheer Tory lies, yet again! If everyone was agreed that this would benefit the Tories, why were all these Tory MP's worried about losing their seats or is the Independent part of this elaborate plan You can just make up stuff if you like to suit your argument but you would perhaps be better not to choose a town I grew up in like Stone (epic fail). Stone already includes part of the Moorlands has an electorate of almost 67k at 2010 and will probably already be at the 70-75k mark now, similarly Stafford had an electorate of almost 70k at 2010 and again would be at the 70-75k level now. Stafford incidentally a marginal seat 9k Tory majority !!!! these might be marginal for Jezza but not so much for Theresa . Stafford has only been Labour in the Blair years since 1945 and he was supposedly a Tory anyway according to some Labour has to be several points ahead to win an election you say well generally that's how it works old bean, I do like the idea Cameron had worked it all out must have been some sort of genius to be able to model population changes, voting intentions and the decisions of the boundary commission Your lying again 'followyoudown'! And being deceitful too! Of course, CCHQ worked all this out! The idea that 'Call Me Dave' thought he would reduce the size of the HoC without any analysis or forethought is sublimely ridiculous! As I have pointed out, academics have been able to model the impact of bigger constituencies on the outcome of elections and it significantly favours the Tory Party. If you are suggesting otherwise you are either stupid or a liar. I suspect it is the latter?! |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 16:24:28 GMT
But some of the workload of the M.E.P.s will be transferred to the HoC(haven't you heard of 'Brexit'?). Clearly, your arithmetic doesn't take account of this. If you check German M.Ps and M.E.P.s will be larger than ours! The MEP's will be employed until we leave then we don't need MEP's because we've left the EU. Or have I missed something? I thought Chicken May was signing the Divorce Bill in two years time. M.E.P.s are made redundant the second that is signed! Don't you Tories understand your own government action's? Crikey?! And you lot think you can run the country well if given a massive majority? Surely not!  |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 9, 2017 17:44:04 GMT
If everyone was agreed that this would benefit the Tories, why were all these Tory MP's worried about losing their seats or is the Independent part of this elaborate plan You can just make up stuff if you like to suit your argument but you would perhaps be better not to choose a town I grew up in like Stone (epic fail). Stone already includes part of the Moorlands has an electorate of almost 67k at 2010 and will probably already be at the 70-75k mark now, similarly Stafford had an electorate of almost 70k at 2010 and again would be at the 70-75k level now. Stafford incidentally a marginal seat 9k Tory majority !!!! these might be marginal for Jezza but not so much for Theresa . Stafford has only been Labour in the Blair years since 1945 and he was supposedly a Tory anyway according to some Labour has to be several points ahead to win an election you say well generally that's how it works old bean, I do like the idea Cameron had worked it all out must have been some sort of genius to be able to model population changes, voting intentions and the decisions of the boundary commission Your lying again 'followyoudown'! And being deceitful too! Of course, CCHQ worked all this out! The idea that 'Call Me Dave' thought he would reduce the size of the HoC without any analysis or forethought is sublimely ridiculous! As I have pointed out, academics have been able to model the impact of bigger constituencies on the outcome of elections and it significantly favours the Tory Party. If you are suggesting otherwise you are either stupid or a liar. I suspect it is the latter?! This really is groundhog day, you make up some bullshit claim like with Stone / Stafford (Stafford a marginal with 9,000 Tory majority ) get pulled up on it being rubbish and then ignore it or make a straw man argument and then finish with a childish you must be stupid or a liar. All these academics you claim can model it, you'd think you'd be able to put up one from when it was first announced in the 2010 manifesto, look forward to reading this expert analysis can't be hard to find with so many people able to predict it  The truth not that you can recognise it is that's it simply not possible to forecast this with the changing political landscape and less and less tribal loyalties. |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 9, 2017 20:31:11 GMT
Your lying again 'followyoudown'! And being deceitful too! Of course, CCHQ worked all this out! The idea that 'Call Me Dave' thought he would reduce the size of the HoC without any analysis or forethought is sublimely ridiculous! As I have pointed out, academics have been able to model the impact of bigger constituencies on the outcome of elections and it significantly favours the Tory Party. If you are suggesting otherwise you are either stupid or a liar. I suspect it is the latter?! This really is groundhog day, you make up some bullshit claim like with Stone / Stafford (Stafford a marginal with 9,000 Tory majority ) get pulled up on it being rubbish and then ignore it or make a straw man argument and then finish with a childish you must be stupid or a liar. All these academics you claim can model it, you'd think you'd be able to put up one from when it was first announced in the 2010 manifesto, look forward to reading this expert analysis can't be hard to find with so many people able to predict it The truth not that you can recognise it is that's it simply not possible to forecast this with the changing political landscape and less and less tribal loyalties. Nonsense because any modelling/analysis is always done within certain parameters. it is possible for extraordinary events to take place, as we all know but it doesn't alter the fact in an relatively close election the reduction to 600 seats helps the Tories. I'll give more examples of where adding in rural areas definitely helps the Tories e.g. Chester, Bedford, Worcester. It doesn't take a genius to work out that a move to 600 constituencies massively helps the Tories. Why you find it necessary to deceive people with a string of deceitful posts I don't know? But, my experience of Tories has been the deeper the shit they're in the more they lie to cover it up. You've been a prime example of this! |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on May 9, 2017 20:41:21 GMT
Just thought of another voting Con that the Tories have done in London was introducing the bedroom tax and the benefit cap what this has done is forcing lower income families to move from London boroughs out making way for higher income people and you've guessed it most of these voters are Labour supporters so politically cleansing an area people have been left on 50p housing benefit by the government benefits freeze that's forced many out of there homes
As Teresa May said herself the Tory Party seen as the Nasty Party, and she's going back to this.
The conservatives putting the Con into politics!!
|
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 9, 2017 22:22:43 GMT
This really is groundhog day, you make up some bullshit claim like with Stone / Stafford (Stafford a marginal with 9,000 Tory majority ) get pulled up on it being rubbish and then ignore it or make a straw man argument and then finish with a childish you must be stupid or a liar. All these academics you claim can model it, you'd think you'd be able to put up one from when it was first announced in the 2010 manifesto, look forward to reading this expert analysis can't be hard to find with so many people able to predict it The truth not that you can recognise it is that's it simply not possible to forecast this with the changing political landscape and less and less tribal loyalties. Nonsense because any modelling/analysis is always done within certain parameters. it is possible for extraordinary events to take place, as we all know but it doesn't alter the fact in an relatively close election the reduction to 600 seats helps the Tories. I'll give more examples of where adding in rural areas definitely helps the Tories e.g. Chester, Bedford, Worcester. It doesn't take a genius to work out that a move to 600 constituencies massively helps the Tories. Why you find it necessary to deceive people with a string of deceitful posts I don't know? But, my experience of Tories has been the deeper the shit they're in the more they lie to cover it up. You've been a prime example of this! So no actual evidence of these experts predicting this from 2010, strange if everyone knows this was the outcome that you can't produce a single article of anyone making this point. |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on May 10, 2017 6:20:47 GMT
Just thought of another voting Con that the Tories have done in London was introducing the bedroom tax and the benefit cap what this has done is forcing lower income families to move from London boroughs out making way for higher income people and you've guessed it most of these voters are Labour supporters so politically cleansing an area people have been left on 50p housing benefit by the government benefits freeze that's forced many out of there homes As Teresa May said herself the Tory Party seen as the Nasty Party, and she's going back to this. The conservatives putting the Con into politics!! too fooking right that those policies were needed, the bedroom tax as you call it, which wasnt a tax was a way of freeing up social housing for people/families that needed it, instead of single or a couple of people living in a house that was far too big for them. If bliars government had actually built more than just a few token council houses then it wouldnt have been needed. The benefit cap, yes, why should people sit on their arses taking home £26k a year when hard working people dont earn it? |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on May 10, 2017 6:22:47 GMT
Nonsense because any modelling/analysis is always done within certain parameters. it is possible for extraordinary events to take place, as we all know but it doesn't alter the fact in an relatively close election the reduction to 600 seats helps the Tories. I'll give more examples of where adding in rural areas definitely helps the Tories e.g. Chester, Bedford, Worcester. It doesn't take a genius to work out that a move to 600 constituencies massively helps the Tories. Why you find it necessary to deceive people with a string of deceitful posts I don't know? But, my experience of Tories has been the deeper the shit they're in the more they lie to cover it up. You've been a prime example of this! So no actual evidence of these experts predicting this from 2010, strange if everyone knows this was the outcome that you can't produce a single article of anyone making this point. At least we've moved on to a form of ethnic cleansing now  |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 10, 2017 6:35:51 GMT
The MEP's will be employed until we leave then we don't need MEP's because we've left the EU. Or have I missed something? I thought Chicken May was signing the Divorce Bill in two years time. M.E.P.s are made redundant the second that is signed! Don't you Tories understand your own government action's? Crikey?! And you lot think you can run the country well if given a massive majority? Surely not! UK MEP's will be employed until the day we officially Leave the EU. That's it. There's no mystery or devious plan. It's not dependent on any cheque clearing. |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on May 10, 2017 7:54:03 GMT
Just thought of another voting Con that the Tories have done in London was introducing the bedroom tax and the benefit cap what this has done is forcing lower income families to move from London boroughs out making way for higher income people and you've guessed it most of these voters are Labour supporters so politically cleansing an area people have been left on 50p housing benefit by the government benefits freeze that's forced many out of there homes As Teresa May said herself the Tory Party seen as the Nasty Party, and she's going back to this. The conservatives putting the Con into politics!! too fooking right that those policies were needed, the bedroom tax as you call it, which wasnt a tax was a way of freeing up social housing for people/families that needed it, instead of single or a couple of people living in a house that was far too big for them. If bliars government had actually built more than just a few token council houses then it wouldnt have been needed. The benefit cap, yes, why should people sit on their arses taking home £26k a year when hard working people dont earn it? But the social housing that they needed to move into was not there so resulted in loads of people being made homeless from homes they had lived in for years and who coursed the houses not to be available oh yes the Tories who allowed sell offs but would not allow councils to reinvest this money in housing so reducing the national social housing stock. The figures you quote are again tory/ daily mail propaganda most people live on or just above the bread line, with the rise in food banks and homelessness the Tories are taking us back to the Victorian era they so much admire with the poor being treated as second class citizens next they will want the workhouses back. The caring Tories kicking the poor onto the street! |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on May 11, 2017 9:48:14 GMT
Here's me lado wearing out shoe leather, knocking on doors meeting real people....
|
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 11, 2017 9:52:17 GMT
Here's me lado wearing out shoe leather, knocking on doors meeting real people.... For a second, I thought you are saying, "my boyo is wearing the leather!" |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on May 11, 2017 19:45:27 GMT
Here's me lado wearing out shoe leather, knocking on doors meeting real people.... Newcastle Street, made for the future MP |
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on May 11, 2017 23:54:59 GMT
Here's me lado wearing out shoe leather, knocking on doors meeting real people.... Newcastle Street, made for the future MP Newcastle's Street? Is the Tory Essex Boy spending £2m buying the election like the Tory candidate in the West Midlands did? |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on May 12, 2017 6:17:35 GMT
Newcastle Street, made for the future MP Newcastle's Street? Is the Tory Essex Boy spending £2m buying the election like the Tory candidate in the West Midlands did? It's a shame that you live so far away from the Potteries that you're clueless about their voting intentions. Silverdale was a staunch Labour area and if this "Tory Essex Boy" feels comfortable canvassing there then it says something about both him and also the change of attitude in the area. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on May 12, 2017 7:43:04 GMT
Newcastle Street, made for the future MP Newcastle's Street? Is the Tory Essex Boy spending £2m buying the election like the Tory candidate in the West Midlands did? How strange for someone so often prone to call people liars to be caught out well just making stuff up, only ever seen the sum of £1m mentioned for spending by the Tory candidate. Still good work 2 posts in a row without making racially offensive comments about the next MP for Newcastle. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2017 8:32:54 GMT
Newcastle's Street? Is the Tory Essex Boy spending £2m buying the election like the Tory candidate in the West Midlands did? How strange for someone so often prone to call people liars to be caught out well just making stuff up, only ever seen the sum of £1m mentioned for spending by the Tory candidate. Still good work 2 posts in a row without making racially offensive comments about the next MP for Newcastle. Inflation mate ........all hot air as usual |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on May 12, 2017 9:08:47 GMT
Newcastle Street, made for the future MP Newcastle's Street? Is the Tory Essex Boy spending £2m buying the election like the Tory candidate in the West Midlands did? No he'll let conservative central office do that then claim he knows nothing!! The conservatives the party of wealth if they don't like the election result they'll try to buy it!! |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on May 12, 2017 12:41:58 GMT
too fooking right that those policies were needed, the bedroom tax as you call it, which wasnt a tax was a way of freeing up social housing for people/families that needed it, instead of single or a couple of people living in a house that was far too big for them. If bliars government had actually built more than just a few token council houses then it wouldnt have been needed. The benefit cap, yes, why should people sit on their arses taking home £26k a year when hard working people dont earn it? But the social housing that they needed to move into was not there so resulted in loads of people being made homeless from homes they had lived in for years and who coursed the houses not to be available oh yes the Tories who allowed sell offs but would not allow councils to reinvest this money in housing so reducing the national social housing stock. The figures you quote are again tory/ daily mail propaganda most people live on or just above the bread line, with the rise in food banks and homelessness the Tories are taking us back to the Victorian era they so much admire with the poor being treated as second class citizens next they will want the workhouses back. The caring Tories kicking the poor onto the street! so why didnt labour build any houses for these poor people to live in during their 13 years in power? The tories were building as many houses a year than the total labour built in 13 years, look it up labour council kicking people out of their homes for profit www.google.es/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/families-cheated-homes-poor-labour-council-gentrification |
|
|
|
Post by Northy on May 12, 2017 13:02:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kidsgroveboxxy on May 20, 2017 21:36:50 GMT
The bloke is an absolute knob-end. You should see how run-down and shabby looking his house is in Alsagers Bank. Spends most of his time in London on taxpayers money than visiting Newcastle.
A sure-fire money spinner for anyone on here. Irregardless of political background, stand as a Labour candidate. You're guaranteed a win!
Cunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 27, 2017 22:39:51 GMT
Oh deep joy.....
|
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Mar 9, 2018 9:02:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Mar 9, 2018 12:44:19 GMT
I wonder what the percentage is of politicians that are not complete twats?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Mar 9, 2018 13:50:13 GMT
I wonder what the percentage is of politicians that are not complete twats? If it's any higher than 1% I'll be amazed. |
|
. Stafford has only been Labour in the Blair years since 1945 and he was supposedly a Tory anyway according to some 
