Tories try to stitch up Corbyn with boundary changes

osborne is surrounded by tory seats, come on it won't have much of an effect.

It won't affect which party but Cheshire is losing a constituency so someone's going to be out of a job. The way it's landed locally is that there'll be 2 seats and 3 Tory MPs, one of those being Osbourne.

'The polls' also say Hillary has an 89% chance of winning the US election.

Ho-ho-ho. They tickle me.

My stupid Tory voting fellow hobbits.

I live Macclesfield so I'm guessing you're not too far away.

I live near Macclesfield

I'd have to favour Rutley for keeping the job just because I don't have a reason to dislike him(apart from being a Tory MP of course ).

Not that I particularly care tbh.

It won't affect which party but Cheshire is losing a constituency so someone's going to be out of a job. The way it's landed locally is that there'll be 2 seats and 3 Tory MPs, one of those being Osbourne.

yes. it's very sorry that an MP who can get a senior management job or go overseas and work for any global firm is out of a job.....

The House of Commons is too small to seat 650 or 600 MPs: I believe that ideally, a new parliament building should be built, and preferably outside London. It would not bother me too much if the number of MPs was decreased to a figure even as low as 400 as long as citizens were better represented locally.

But he is a Mormon

Prsom.

Quite possibly the dumbest religion out there

And my dumb fellow constituents vote for him every time To be fair I don't think he really lets his Mormonism influence him in any undesirable way as an MP, so as dumb as the religion is I can't really mark it against him. Him being a Tory is more of an issue for me.

There is always a greater none Tory vote round here. Labour always try and play this card to get everyone to vote for them as the "oust the Tories" candidate.

Although I bet plenty of lib voters round here are basically Tories who want to be able to vote Tory without feeling guilty. Kill the disabled without having to feel responsible for it. I doubt most of them would ever vote labour.

She does (well, not 89% anymore, but 538 doesn't claim that figure anymore either). You shouldn't confuse your hystrerical, conspiracy theorist's hatred for Clinton with some kind of rational, objective assessment of her actual likelihood of winning the election.

All things considered, given she is turning states like South Carolina blue, she clearly is in the poll position to win the election.

You lose all credibility when you try and claim that anyone with a different opinion is a conspiracy theorist. Your type of person wants to crush all ideological dissent.
When you pathologise differing views you are in the seedbed of totalitarianism.

I don't know what '538' is, care to explain? I was referring to the NYT.

And laughing a lot about 'clearly in poll position'- I bet that only conspiracy theorists think anything else, right?

Jesus, I'm surprised you voted Brexit, bit too sensible, and anti-consensus wisdom for you.

He's not calling you a paranoid conspiracy theorist because you have a different opinion to him. He's calling you a paranoid conspiracy theorist because you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist..... *

@SaucissonSecCy


On a side note; if it really was an establishment plot then I doubt George Osbourne would be seeing his own seat carved up between its neighbours.

I thought it was actually to show that the Commons was inferior to the Lords.

He might have to get his first job outside of politics.

I doubt this will happen though since the Tory establishment(who are apparently so worried about him) actually want him to remain as Labour leader for the very same reason that moderate Labour supporters want rid of him.