Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Tories try to stitch up Corbyn with boundary changes Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    As Have I Got News For You tweeted...

    "As boundary changes threaten Corbyn’s seat, Tories deny trying to rig election - saying if that were the case they'd keep him in."
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pinkberry_y)
    highlighted in bold are statements which you are making of the top of your head with no substantial evidence to back up. You are not s fortune teller. You do not know what the future holds for us. If someone said 10 years ago that Britian would be leaving the EU, they'd have been laughed out of the room.

    I think you need to take some humble pills kind sir
    Even if the entire Labour Party membership were behind Corbyn (which they certainly are not), that's still a tiny number of people when compared with the size of the general electorate. There's a difference between proposing the UK would leave the EU, when there were still a considerable number of eurosceptics 10 years ago, and proposing that a leftist threat to national security would ever come within 10 light-years of living in Downing Street (although I am still surprised we are voted Leave). Look, no matter how much you love Corbyn, do you not realise just how conservative the general public are? A large amount of his support comes from deluded middle-class students who think socialism is the new 'hip' trend; no one wants him in office, and he's never going to get in office. In a general election you have to win votes across all age categories, including conservative older/middle-aged voters, who are NEVER going to vote for him. He can't win, why do you keep insisting he can?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Having Corbyn remain an MP would be the best possible scenario for the Tories. A leader who while supported by many in the Labour party has created such deep divisions within his own support base is exactly what they wish for.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yay, I've gone from a safe Labour seat where my vote is meaningless to a bit of a mix of a constituency between poor and posh areas so maybe my vote will be worth more now.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think party leaders need to be MPs - the Green "Party" has twice as many leaders as it does MPs!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The boundary changes are incredibly undemocratic and are only being enforced by the tories to strengthen their majority.
    The justification for the boundary changes was that there is an in built labour adavantage. However that is simply not the case anymore. At the last election Labour won a seat for roughly every 40,000 votes. The Tories won a seat for around every 34,000 votes. 36% of the votes gave the tories more than 50% of the seats. How is that unfair on them at all?


    The second justification was that we should 'equalise constituencies'. However the boundaries are not being drawn by population but by the number of registered voters at the end of 2015. That means that 2 million extra people who registered to vote in the EU referendum were not included when boundaries were drawn.

    Finally we are removing 50 elected MPs while at the same time having allowed Cameron to put large numbers of unelected peers into the lords.

    So all those people who moaned about the EU being undemocratic are supporting this attack on our democracy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    getting stiched up? not really http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/con...cies/E14000763 his seat has a 21000 majority, and is surrounded by his MPs. even if they included some Tory wards from neighbouring constituencies, it wouldn't affect him much.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    The boundary changes are incredibly undemocratic and are only being enforced by the tories to strengthen their majority.
    The justification for the boundary changes was that there is an in built labour adavantage. However that is simply not the case anymore. At the last election Labour won a seat for roughly every 40,000 votes. The Tories won a seat for around every 34,000 votes. 36% of the votes gave the tories more than 50% of the seats. How is that unfair on them at all?


    The second justification was that we should 'equalise constituencies'. However the boundaries are not being drawn by population but by the number of registered voters at the end of 2015. That means that 2 million extra people who registered to vote in the EU referendum were not included when boundaries were drawn.

    Finally we are removing 50 elected MPs while at the same time having allowed Cameron to put large numbers of unelected peers into the lords.

    So all those people who moaned about the EU being undemocratic are supporting this attack on our democracy.
    When will you give up endorsing rotten boroughs? Shall we repeal "The Reform Act" while we're at it?

    Also the referendum electorate was only 241000 higher in the referendum than the general election last year, X people registering is not the same thing as the electorate growing by X, the vast majority of people who "register" are already on the electoral roll.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    When will you give up endorsing rotten boroughs? Shall we repeal "The Reform Act" while we're at it?

    Also the referendum electorate was only 241000 higher in the referendum than the general election last year, X people registering is not the same thing as the electorate growing by X, the vast majority of people who "register" are already on the electoral roll.

    Yet these 'rotten boroughs' allowed the tories to need over 6000 less votes for every seat it won than Labour. I don't see how a system which allowed the tories to need less votes per seat than labour was unfair on the tories.

    The boundaries are drawn on people who were registered to vote. I.e people on the electoral roll. Thus anyone who registered to vote for the EU referendum who wasn't previously registered was not taken into account.
    Two million people were not counted. And that doesn't include people who didn't register either.

    But if you truly want to make it fair, then why not divide constituencies on populations over 18? Why choose registered voters at the end of 2015?


    Let's not pretend that the tories are pushing through these boundary chanegs for any other reason than the fact they are favourable to the tories.

    I'm surprised you endorse removing 50 democratically elected MPs, shortly after increasing the amount of unelected peers after going on about how 'undemocratic' the EU was.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    The boundary review is carried out by an independent organisation and has been a continuous process since at least 1832.
    It is being pushed very hard for the tories because they know full well it will benefit them.

    Again, at the last election the conservatives won one seat for every 34,000 votes. Labour won one seat for every 40,000 votes.
    The tories won over 50% of the total seats with 36% of the vote. Now please someone tell me how that's unfair on the tories?


    The way the boundary commission has redrawn the boundaries has been very favourable to the tories, by excluding two million people who did not register until after December 2015.

    Our population is growing and we have huge challenges ahead of us, why should we remove our elected representatives?
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yet these 'rotten boroughs' allowed the tories to need over 6000 less votes for every seat it won than Labour. I don't see how a system which allowed the tories to need less votes per seat than labour was unfair on the tories.

    The boundaries are drawn on people who were registered to vote. I.e people on the electoral roll. Thus anyone who registered to vote for the EU referendum who wasn't previously registered was not taken into account.
    Two million people were not counted. And that doesn't include people who didn't register either.

    But if you truly want to make it fair, then why not divide constituencies on populations over 18? Why choose registered voters at the end of 2015?


    Let's not pretend that the tories are pushing through these boundary chanegs for any other reason than the fact they are favourable to the tories.

    I'm surprised you endorse removing 50 democratically elected MPs, shortly after increasing the amount of unelected peers after going on about how 'undemocratic' the EU was.
    So you're saying that the constituencies should be set up such that the average votyes per seat is about the same for each party? But this is a simple question: should each vote be worth the same when it comes to electing your MP, i.e. should I have roughly the same number of voters (you know, the people that determine how much my vote counts) or should the constituencies be set in stone and not change with demographics.

    Once again, the increase in the electoral roll for June wasn't even a quarter of a million, it's not even 500 people per seat, and with an average ward size of over 10 times that jiggling boundaries differently really is unlikely to be worth the effort, in fact all the commission has to do to put two fingers up to you here is to show that even with the referendum electoral role all the guidelines given to them are still adhered to.

    I have also in the past asked others to show that the correlation between electorate and adult population is sufficiently weak that one cannot be used as a proxy for the other, oddly nobody was forthcoming with such evidence.

    You do realise that this review was supposed to have finished 3 years ago according to the 1986 act, which itself was a consolidation of legislation going back to at least 1949 mandating regular reviews of boundaries to account for demographic shifts. Actually, can you remind me who was in power in 1949, I can't remember who, The Earl Attlee rings a bell as being PM but the party is completely lost to me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    This is really farcical. Second referendums, posthumous rule changes when the wrong person wins leadership, and now boundary changes on an already elected MP.

    Correct me if I'm wrong from this article, does this mean they could get rid of him when he hasn't even been voted out?

    I can't believe these Blairite people want to pretend any of this is a getting elected to do-good issue. What it is obviously is is an all powerful establishment that hates democracy and never wants anything to change ideologically. Just a modern day manifestation of the old class feudalism, with cap-doffers and forelock-tuggers now replaced with the unquestioning disciples of received wisdom and fake progressive causes doing their masters bidding and making sure all remain in their place.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/news/polit...-a3342936.html
    We can glean two things from your rant: firstly your assumption that Jews won't vote vote for Corbyn. I'll give you the opportunity to rescind that. Secondly, that you're a paranoid and delusional conspiracy theorist. But we already knew that.....*
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    You do realise the 60% or so of Labour members who probably support Corbyn are not "the people", right? They are, what, 350,000 in total? There are 60 million people in the UK, approximately.

    And the polls clearly show most of them think Corbyn is a completely shambolic, incompetent, terrorist-sympathising idiot, and they will never vote for the Labour Party while it is led by him. It's quite simply really; Corbyn will never win a general election. If you think he will, you are deluded.
    Listen, all this talk about millions of people - including from the heartlands of the party itself, let alone millions diametrically opposed from other sections - is all well and good, but still, a few hundred thousand overrides that. Corbynista logic*
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    We can glean two things from your rant: firstly your assumption that Jews won't vote vote for Corbyn. I'll give you the opportunity to rescind that. Secondly, that you're a paranoid and delusional conspiracy theorist. But we already knew that.....*
    Uh, and you are a lying smear merhcant trying to bring Jews into the equation out of knowhere, using them as political capital. I suppose you are trying to peddle some anti-semite bull. Where the hell did I mention Jewish people, you brazen liar?

    Just traduce my name, and call me an anti-semite with no evidence, and of course the classic establishment tactic, call anyone who disagrees with anything a conspiracy theorist.

    How dare you, you lying rat... I won't rescind anything, seeing as it is a transparently manufactured point I didn't make, in fact it is so fanciful I don't even have any idea what you are talking about.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    'The polls' also say Hillary has an 89% chance of winning the US election.

    Ho-ho-ho. They tickle me.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    It may be true that it is in the Tories interest to push for it, but that does not change the fact that the boundary change would be more fair.

    In regards the Tories winning a majority with 36% of the popular vote: I'm in favour of proportional representation, so I do agree with you on that point.
    The tories won a seat for every 34,000 votes they received, Labour won a seat for every 40,000 votes they received. How is a boundary system more in favour of the tories fair?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So you're saying that the constituencies should be set up such that the average votyes per seat is about the same for each party?
    Absolutely. It seems bizarre that the SNP can get 1.5 million votes and 56 seats whereas UKIP get four million votes and one seat. It's incredibly undemocratic.

    It's why I favour PR, or STV which would address such an issue and mean that the public were fairly represented, as well as removing the possibility of gerrymandering and safe seats.

    However the main point is this; part of the justification for these boundary changes are that Labour have an inbuilt advantage. How can that possibly be the case when the conservatives required 6,000 less votes for every seat it won than Labour did? The new changes will turn that ratio even more in favour of the conservatives.


    The fairest way would be to have the same votes per seat ratio for every party. That would be truly democratic.



    Once again, the increase in the electoral roll for June wasn't even a quarter of a million, it's not even 500 people per seat, and with an average ward size of over 10 times that jiggling boundaries differently really is unlikely to be worth the effort, in fact all the commission has to do to put two fingers up to you here is to show that even with the referendum electoral role all the guidelines given to them are still adhered to.
    It isn't, two million people have not been accounted for when the boundaries were drawn up.

    I have also in the past asked others to show that the correlation between electorate and adult population is sufficiently weak that one cannot be used as a proxy for the other, oddly nobody was forthcoming with such evidence.
    Why not use population to make it genuinely fair rather than electorate? The latter cannot possibly be more accurate to determine population size.

    Also why should we be removing 50 elected MPs anyway?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    OP- Ken Clarke and George Osborne your two favourite people are also set to lose their seats...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ... In any case choosing between Corbyn, Thornberry or Abbot... Now there's a moral dilemma. :lol



    I actually think 650 is a hell of a lot of MPs. I'd support having more mayors and cutting the number of MPs by around half.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    OP- Ken Clarke and George Osborne your two favourite people are also set to lose their seats...
    osborne is surrounded by tory seats, come on it won't have much of an effect.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 18, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    How are your GCSEs going so far?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.