Jeremy Corbyn

[Old Skier]

whichever - the new boundaries will make it ever harder for Labour in England - well that's how I understand it, and without Scotland a Labour Westminster government seems to be a very long way off. Labour might as well have JC in that case.

Boundary changes have nothing to do with whichever government is in power, they are set by the Boundaries Commision who are supposed to be independent .

 

[SocketRocket]

whichever - the new boundaries will make it ever harder for Labour in England - well that's how I understand it, and without Scotland a Labour Westminster government seems to be a very long way off. Labour might as well have JC in that case.

I believe the proposed boundary changes level up the current ones that give Labour an advantage.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I believe the proposed boundary changes level up the current ones that give Labour an advantage.

thought they might - doesn't change fact that Labour don;t appear to have an earthly without getting back their Scottish seats - at least 40 - or the Brexit negotiations and economy go pear-shaped.

 

[BesCumber]

Under the proposed changes, the NW of England, the NE, London and the East Midlands ( traditional labour heartlands, if you like ), will loose 22 seats.
The whole of the South, ( except London ), and the whole of the East up to the Humber ( Tory central ? ), Will loose 5 seats.
Make of that what you will, but in my vho, there's only one winner here.

 

[Old Skier]

Under the proposed changes, the NW of England, the NE, London and the East Midlands ( traditional labour heartlands, if you like ), will loose 22 seats.
The whole of the South, ( except London ), and the whole of the East up to the Humber ( Tory central ? ), Will loose 5 seats.
Make of that what you will, but in my vho, there's only one winner here.

The tax payer if they reduce the amount of non jobs for a start 😈

 

[Foxholer]

Under the proposed changes, the NW of England, the NE, London and the East Midlands ( traditional labour heartlands, if you like ), will loose 22 seats.
The whole of the South, ( except London ), and the whole of the East up to the Humber ( Tory central ? ), Will loose 5 seats.
Make of that what you will, but in my vho, there's only one winner here.

Democracy!

As the variance in reduction reflects (or at least goes some way to reflect) the 'population drift'!

Anyone who believes that changes are made in order to level up previous changes is questioning the integrity of the Electoral Commission, a body that is absolutely squeaky clean - as it's a fundamental part of the UK's version of democracy!

It is pretty obvious though that losing 5 Scottish seats will have a greater effect on Labour - in Scotland! - than on the Conservatives. However, as the elections are for a, supposedly, United Kingdom, the overall effect should be neutral.

 

[BesCumber]

Anyone who believes that changes are made in order to level up previous changes is questioning the integrity of the Electoral Commission, a body that is absolutely squeaky clean - as it's a fundamental part of the UK's version of democracy!

Thanks for putting my mind at rest FH.
I'll sleep better tonight, knowing our democracy is in the safe hands of such esteemed individuals.

Can't see how the loss of 5 probable SNP seats in Scotland balances out the loss of 22 seats in still strong Labour heartlands though. The overall effect is far from neutral. In fact Lord Hayward (tory), believes 30 of the 50 constituencies to go will be labour held, and 85% of the remaining labour seats will be adversely affected.
Still as you say democracy is in safe hands, and half the country will probably think the changes are an excellent idea. A permanent tory government, whats not to like. :mmm:

PS.
I agree that boundaries need to change to reflect the population drift from the inner cities. What i don't agree with is the lowering in representation in a rising population. Imho.

 

[Foxholer]

...
PS.
I agree that boundaries need to change to reflect the population drift from the inner cities. What i don't agree with is the lowering in representation in a rising population. Imho.

Given that the House of Commons is overcrowded, something had to be done!

This way each MP now has more influence (1/600th vs 1/650th)! And the cost of Parliament is (theoretically) reduced! Getting MPs to work harder in their surgeries - to give voters the same service as previously - might be difficult to apply though!

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Democracy!

As the variance in reduction reflects (or at least goes some way to reflect) the 'population drift'!

Anyone who believes that changes are made in order to level up previous changes is questioning the integrity of the Electoral Commission, a body that is absolutely squeaky clean - as it's a fundamental part of the UK's version of democracy!

It is pretty obvious though that losing 5 Scottish seats will have a greater effect on Labour - in Scotland! - than on the Conservatives. However, as the elections are for a, supposedly, United Kingdom, the overall effect should be neutral.

How many Scottish Labour MP's does it take to change a lightbulb............all of them:lol:

Losing 5 seats when they hold one will not make much difference.

 

[Hobbit]

Under the proposed changes, the NW of England, the NE, London and the East Midlands ( traditional labour heartlands, if you like ), will loose 22 seats.
The whole of the South, ( except London ), and the whole of the East up to the Humber ( Tory central ? ), Will loose 5 seats.
Make of that what you will, but in my vho, there's only one winner here.

Why is there an assumption that a seat is a safe seat? I appreciate that there are traditional areas/seats but history clearly shows that what was a safe seat at one election isn't necessarily the case at the next election.

I used to live in what was considered to a dyed in the wool safe Labour seat going back into the mists of time. The previous election saw it lost. And I'm sure there's any number of ex-MP's down the years were shocked to lose their (safe) seats.

Blair's original win and Labour's shocking loss at the last election clearly shows that parties doing the right things, having the right policies, connecting with the electorate can lead to wins, even shock ones.

As an ex-Labour voter, Labour won't be getting my vote whilst they continue down the road of rehashing the Foot/Kinnock rubbish. And they definitely won't get it whilst Corbyn is anywhere near being leader.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Blair's original win and Labour's shocking loss at the last election clearly shows that parties doing the right things, having the right policies, connecting with the electorate can lead to wins, even shock ones.

Blimey, never thought I would see Hobbit endorsing the SNP on hear.

 

[Old Skier]

Blimey, never thought I would see Hobbit endorsing the SNP on hear.

He also said there's no such thing as a safe seat.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

........and I can't spell here.oo:

 

[Old Skier]

........and I can't spell here.oo:

One of life's minor problems.

 

[Hobbit]

Blimey, never thought I would see Hobbit endorsing the SNP on hear.

Think I've been assimilated... or my hearing aid is on a go slow....

 

[JCW]

Fingers crossed that he wins. Labour will be unelectable as a government as a result.

Hahahaha , very true unless you a left wing union member who still think he will be PM , each to his own ?..............EYG

 

[BesCumber]

Given that the House of Commons is overcrowded, something had to be done!

This way each MP now has more influence (1/600th vs 1/650th)! And the cost of Parliament is (theoretically) reduced! Getting MPs to work harder in their surgeries - to give voters the same service as previously - might be difficult to apply though!

Mmm.... useful things, statistics.
I hope your right FH regarding them working harder.
As you imply (i guess), time will tellg:thup:

Why is there an assumption that a seat is a safe seat? I appreciate that there are traditional areas/seats but history clearly shows that what was a safe seat at one election isn't necessarily the case at the next election.
As an ex-Labour voter, Labour won't be getting my vote whilst they continue down the road of rehashing the Foot/Kinnock rubbish. And they definitely won't get it whilst Corbyn is anywhere near being leader.

No assumption Hobbit just an opinion based on the historical norm, but as you say, no guarantees.
As for JC, as i have previously stated. I've been a member just less than 33yr, man an boy, but if he wins again I'm oot.
I will not vote for militant tendency :angry:

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Watched the JC /OS debate this evening. Being quite strongly left-leaning, I rather despaired at some of views and attitudes towards OS on show. I really struggle to see myself voting for a Labour Party led by JC given what I saw and heard from his supporters. They are deluded if they think that a Labour Party under JC could ever be elected into government to put into practice his largely laudable views and 'policies'. Not a hope in hell.

Labour needs to be an opposition worthy of, and able to, govern - not a vocal protest movement that under continuing Tory government would be almost irrelevant. Labour needs England to vote them in - they cannot expect anything from Scotland for some time if Labour is led by JC - because under JC, Scots will see no hope in Labour getting sufficient English MPs for Scots Labour MPs to make the difference - and so they won't move in great numbers from SNP for fear of letting in the Tories.

 

[jp5]

Every public figure attracts nutters of some sort.

Can't disagree with much of what Corbyn said.

And can't see anyone else in the Labour party that has a better chance than he does!

 

[Hobbit]

Watched the JC /OS debate this evening. Being quite strongly left-leaning, I rather despaired at some of views and attitudes towards OS on show. I really struggle to see myself voting for a Labour Party led by JC given what I saw and heard from his supporters. They are deluded if they think that a Labour Party under JC could ever be elected into government to put into practice his largely laudable views and 'policies'. Not a hope in hell.

Labour needs to be an opposition worthy of, and able to, govern - not a vocal protest movement that under continuing Tory government would be almost irrelevant. Labour needs England to vote them in - they cannot expect anything from Scotland for some time if Labour is led by JC - because under JC, Scots will see no hope in Labour getting sufficient English MPs for Scots Labour MPs to make the difference - and so they won't move in great numbers from SNP for fear of letting in the Tories.

Going off on a tangent, do you worry about such a one sided political landscape in Scotland?