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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Why not? Labour is enjoying increased support in former Tory areas such as the south. People want change, they want affordable housing, better public services. These areas being Tory probably have far less public services than labour areas. Tory councils like to cut services and charge more for less.
    People in places like Witney want change, they want affordable housing, better council services, libraries, free parking etc and enjoy what labour councils provide people with.

    Secondly people in Witney are more likely to consider university, so they are more likely to want free tuition. That means they are more likely to support labour or the SNP.
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Why not? Labour is enjoying increased support in former Tory areas such as the south. People want change, they want affordable housing, better public services. These areas being Tory probably have far less public services than labour areas. Tory councils like to cut services and charge more for less.
    People in places like Witney want change, they want affordable housing, better council services, libraries, free parking etc and enjoy what labour councils provide people with.

    Secondly people in Witney are more likely to consider university, so they are more likely to want free tuition. That means they are more likely to support labour or the SNP.
    If you think Labour can win in Witney, especially Corbyn, no offence but you're deluded. Just as much as someone who would argue that, George Osborne would win in Islington North.

    Labour certainly won't win where I'm from in Somerset.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    why? some early polls? if labour gets behind Corbyn fully after the election, the combined mass of supporters and MPs won't be wiped out so easily

    it'd be destroyed even more if Owen Smith won tbh
    The Labour Party isn't what it was. With the election of Corbyn he's effectively declared war on the Blairite Wing of the party - which is a considerable number of people. The new people becoming members are by and large not Labour people, but Corbyn people. They want to rid the party of the Blairites in a cull. If they do that- why on earth would the centre of the party rally behind someone who's just expelled them?

    But that's a side issue. Overwhelmingly, it's about the centre swing vote, a few troublemaking, noisy Trots won't change anything, it's all about the floaters. These people have never given any indication that they are interested in far left government, especially the extreme student union politics that Corbyn represents.

    The polls aren't one or two - it's dozens, consistently and also polls that have been shown over the last two elections and the referendum to consistently underestimate the conservative / Centre-right vote.

    If you don't want to believe the polls, how about history? After Blair, Brown went left and lost to a coalition. Then Milliband went further left and gave the Conservatives a majority. Corbyn has gone even further left - why would you believe that he's going to succeed when British electorates, especially in England are consistently rejecting left-wing manifestoes?

    Michael Foot ran on a similar far-left platform and the Labour Party was so badly defeated that they didn't recover until Tony Blair came in.

    You need to face up to facts - very few people like the idea of the reality of socialism and the far left and they have never voted for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    You can promote your confidence all you like, but none of us, not a single person in the UK knows what position the Tories and Labour will be in come 2020. Would anyone have thought that Theresa May would be PM back in July last year?
    Ha Ha ha! Not taking me up on my offer of a bet that Labour won't get an absolute majority (which frankly after 10 years of Tory rule they should be expected to) at the next election, huh? Sensible chap.

    I have noticed this about Socialists. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk when it comes to money. Their own that is. Taking other people's in tax they are very comfortable with. But anything out of their own pocket? Not so much...

    ALevelS, how old are you? 18? Will you be 30 before we see the next Labour Government do you think? Could be as this civil war continues...

    The joke of it is, you will be settled and reasonably prosperous by then and will be voting Tory anyway.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Ha Ha ha! Not taking me up on my offer of a bet that Labour won't get an absolute majority (which frankly after 10 years of Tory rule they should be expected to) at the next election, huh? Sensible chap.

    I have noticed this about Socialists. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk when it comes to money. Their own that is. Taking other people's in tax they are very comfortable with. But anything out of their own pocket? Not so much...

    ALevelS, how old are you? 18? Will you be 30 before we see the next Labour Government do you think? Could be as this civil war continues...

    The joke of it is, you will be settled and reasonably prosperous by then and will be voting Tory anyway.
    I'm not 'talk' at all, but evidently you are.

    And please don't generalise people, you'd be whinging if I generalised Tory voters and the far-right.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    Boundary changes happen all the time. It's not a conspiracy so grow up.
    Do you think the tories would push for boundary changes if they didn't favour them? Or if they meant the tories would lose far more seats than labour? Of course not.

    At the last election the tories won a seat for about every 34,000 votes. Labour won a seat for about every 40,000 votes. The proposed boundary changes are not done on population but on the number of registered voters. It completely fails to take acccount of the extra two million voters who registered to vote in the EU referendum.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    And Osborne and Boris Johnson all of whom are losing their seats too.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Labour are set to lose far more seats than the conservatives from the proposed boundary changes pushed by the conservatives.

    Again, the tories required 6,000 less votes for every seat they won in 2015 than Labour did. Why should it be gerrymandered more in their favour?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Do you think the tories would push for boundary changes if they didn't favour them? Or if they meant the tories would lose far more seats than labour? Of course not.

    At the last election the tories won a seat for about every 34,000 votes. Labour won a seat for about every 40,000 votes. The proposed boundary changes are not done on population but on the number of registered voters. It completely fails to take acccount of the extra two million voters who registered to vote in the EU referendum.
    Would you complain about a Labour government using boundary changes to favour them? All do it and under these changes Boris Johnson and Osborne could also lose their seats, so undone know why Corbyn should be given any sort of privilege. Get over yourself.

    Anyway, Corbyn doesn't need any help in losing Labour seats. He can do that on his own.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    Would you complain about a Labour government using boundary changes to favour them? All do it and under these changes Boris Johnson and Osborne could also lose their seats, so undone know why Corbyn should be given any sort of privilege. Get over yourself.

    Anyway, Corbyn doesn't need any help in losing Labour seats. He can do that on his own.
    I don't care about Corbyn and don't want him as leader. I care about the government pushing through boundary changes for the sole purposed of increasing their majority.
    I would complain if Labour did it, it's incredibly undemocratic.

    Why should the 2 million people who registered after 2015 for the EU referendum not be included in the data for the boundary review? Why should they not be done on population instead of the electoral register?
    Why should we get rid of 50 elected MPs when we have just let Cameron stuff the lords with tory peers?


    The government should not be able to gerrymander the boundaries.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't care about Corbyn and don't want him as leader. I care about the government pushing through boundary changes for the sole purposed of increasing their majority.
    I would complain if Labour did it, it's incredibly undemocratic.

    Why should the 2 million people who registered after 2015 for the EU referendum not be included in the data for the boundary review? Why should they not be done on population instead of the electoral register?
    Why should we get rid of 50 elected MPs when we have just let Cameron stuff the lords with tory peers?


    The government should not be able to gerrymander the boundaries.
    Fine fair enough.


    To be honest they should've be registered for the GE so I have no sympathy. (Unless they weren't 18 then, that's the only exception ill accept so don't bother arguing the point)

    The government should be able to gerrymander to favour itself.

    There should be less politicians. We don't need 650. The Lords is a different issue altogether.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    Fine fair enough.


    To be honest they should've be registered for the GE so I have no sympathy. (Unless they weren't 18 then, that's the only exception ill accept so don't bother arguing the point)

    The government should be able to gerrymander to favour itself.

    There should be less politicians. We don't need 650. The Lords is a different issue altogether.
    They registered for the EU referendum. It was a great thing that so many people who had previously not been political had registered and taken part. Now we are saying that apparently they don't count.

    Why was it not done on population of over 18s, which would have been a much fairer and more accurate way of doing it?

    Why should a government be allowed to gerrymander the boundaries to give itself an advantage? That's awful for democracy.

    Why should there be less politicians? We have a huge population, we should have more, not less representatives.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    These boundary changes are going to have a chilling effect on political representation. There was a projection that the current election polls would result in a Conservative vote of 42% electing 100 more Conservative MPs, or in excess of 70% of the House.

    If, like me, you'd like to see more pluralistic and political diverse House, then forget it. The odds are even more stacked against the likes of UKIP, the Greens or any emerging parties.

    No wonder those that support the right wing establishment are celebrating, their grip over the country will increase.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    The Labour Party isn't what it was. With the election of Corbyn he's effectively declared war on the Blairite Wing of the party - which is a considerable number of people. The new people becoming members are by and large not Labour people, but Corbyn people. They want to rid the party of the Blairites in a cull. If they do that- why on earth would the centre of the party rally behind someone who's just expelled them?

    But that's a side issue. Overwhelmingly, it's about the centre swing vote, a few troublemaking, noisy Trots won't change anything, it's all about the floaters. These people have never given any indication that they are interested in far left government, especially the extreme student union politics that Corbyn represents.

    The polls aren't one or two - it's dozens, consistently and also polls that have been shown over the last two elections and the referendum to consistently underestimate the conservative / Centre-right vote.

    If you don't want to believe the polls, how about history? After Blair, Brown went left and lost to a coalition. Then Milliband went further left and gave the Conservatives a majority. Corbyn has gone even further left - why would you believe that he's going to succeed when British electorates, especially in England are consistently rejecting left-wing manifestoes?

    Michael Foot ran on a similar far-left platform and the Labour Party was so badly defeated that they didn't recover until Tony Blair came in.

    You need to face up to facts - very few people like the idea of the reality of socialism and the far left and they have never voted for it.
    And yet the NEC are disproportionately culling Labour members who vote Corbyn

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trinculo)
    After Blair, Brown went left and lost to a coalition. Then Milliband went further left and gave the Conservatives a majority. Corbyn has gone even further left - why would you believe that he's going to succeed when British electorates, especially in England are consistently rejecting left-wing manifestoes?
    Blair's vote share was reduced before then if I remember correctly, and the financial crisis played a big role in Brown losing in 2010. And Ed Miliband wasn't actally that left wing at all (not to mention that he just wasn't seen as PM material, which was likely the main reason for losing). They were still following the same roughly "Blairite" ideology and lost two general elections. There's very little if any evidence that Labour lost in 2010 and 2015 because they were "too left wing".

    I don't think Corbyn will win a general election, but that doesn't say anything about left wing politics in general, which is not restricted just to Corbyn. And it certainly doesn't mean that being "like the Tories, but a bit nicer" by offering watered down Tory policy is the way to go.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Home to one of the largest Orthodox Jewish communities in the whole country. I am guessing that his pro Hamas and Hizbollah views are unlikely to go down too well with those guys...

    http://order-order.com/2016/09/12/oy...ish-community/
    In fact the London orthodox Jewish communities manifest strong anti-Israeli sentiments.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Lefties - Labour won't be winning even if the boundaries remain unchanged, so quit your whining.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    In fact the London orthodox Jewish communities manifest strong anti-Israeli sentiments.
    Do they manifest strong pro Hamas and Hizbollah sentiments too?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They registered for the EU referendum. It was a great thing that so many people who had previously not been political had registered and taken part. Now we are saying that apparently they don't count.

    Why was it not done on population of over 18s, which would have been a much fairer and more accurate way of doing it?

    Why should a government be allowed to gerrymander the boundaries to give itself an advantage? That's awful for democracy.

    Why should there be less politicians? We have a huge population, we should have more, not less representatives.
    We have had this argument before, of if it wasn't with you I had it with someone else.

    Boundary changes are very hard to effect, the Commission never pleases everyone, especially the Opposition, who always call foul.

    No doubt there will be appeals and tweaks and whatever, but the basic premise is this.

    If you want to determine the rubric for the way it is conducted you have to win the election under the old system (that favours you).

    Labour spectacularly failed to do that. They had an unpopular Coalition Government there for the taking and they [email protected] up at the last election.

    So no-one has much sympathy for the whining now.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    We have had this argument before, of if it wasn't with you I had it with someone else.

    Boundary changes are very hard to effect, the Commission never pleases everyone, especially the Opposition, who always call foul.

    No doubt there will be appeals and tweaks and whatever, but the basic premise is this.

    If you want to determine the rubric for the way it is conducted you have to win the election under the old system (that favours you).

    Labour spectacularly failed to do that. They had an unpopular Coalition Government there for the taking and they [email protected] up at the last election.

    So no-one has much sympathy for the whining now.
    What shocks me is how people are content with the government meddling with boundaries to increase its own majority.

    Please do tell me the need to remove 50 MPs while continuing to elect more peers?

    The Conservatives required less votes per seat than Labour at the last election.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Do they manifest strong pro Hamas and Hizbollah sentiments too?
    I'm speaking about orthodox Jews, not about Muslims. :cool:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Please do tell me the need to remove 50 MPs while continuing to elect more peers?

    The Conservatives required less votes per seat than Labour at the last election.
    Both Houses of Parliament are too large. I agree that the size of the Lords is a total joke, but that doesn't negate a rationalisation of the Commons.

    To your bolded point neither the Labour Party nor the Tories have any defence to the iniquities of differential vote shares per MP.

    UKIP is the party that REALLY loses out on that basis. No doubt to your pleasure as someone who disagrees with their politics.


    Party Votes per seat Conservatives 34,244 Labour 40,290 SNP 25,972 Lib Dem 301,986 DUP 23,032 Sinn Ffein 44,058 Plaid Cymru 60,564 SDLP 33,269 UUP 57,467 Ukip 3,881,129 Green 1,157,613
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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

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