I don't believe in them. They are usually made to support a narrative. Labour has quite clearly been ahead in reality. The polls are reflecting this reality a little more now, but it is still a narrative - probably to force Mad May to accept Reese Smog's amendments.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php...al-vote-shares/

 

h1The planned new boundaries give CON 40 more seats than LAB for the same national vote shares

 

July 30th, 2018

GB vote split C38/L38/LD10 on new boundaries: CON 40 seats ahead

Um they both got the same vote share at the last election and if they are going off the fake polls atm, Labour is ahead.

 

If they force this undemocratic move through, it is official: we live in a Tory dictatorship. Utterly f***ing disgusting. At least I love close enough to Scotland that my city and in fact my entire region would ask to join an independent Scotland. Absolutely vile. It is like they are reading from the Republican/ 1984 hymn sheets.

Um they both got the same vote share at the last election and if they are going off the fake polls atm, Labour is ahead.

 

If they force this undemocratic move through, it is official: we live in a Tory dictatorship. Utterly f***ing disgusting. At least I love close enough to Scotland that my city and in fact my entire region would ask to join an independent Scotland. Absolutely vile. It is like they are reading from the Republican/ 1984 hymn sheets.

 

Am I to assume that you don't agree that constituencies should have equal-sized electorates, then?

You are to assume that it is a short sighted solution when topography is brought into it!!! If this happened in the US, Montana would have 0 senators to New York's 50!! It is an anti democratic right wing coup. Again. And it just so HAPPENS, coincidentally to make the Tories win with less vote share than Labour when otherwise the government is on its way out, probably forever. Disgusting disgusting disgusting Tory party. No other party would be so brazen as the Toey newspapers would tear them a new one. This whole system should be scraped. It should not be reformed as it is undemocratic enough anyway - gerrymandering will be the biggest feat of electoral manipulation since the rotten boroughs the landed gentry proto Tories invented hundreds of years ago. Oh. Same people doing it again now. Okay.

well here's a rubbish poll from a new polling company (see BBC website for details)

 

What do you think should happen next?

 

 

Brexit should be abandoned altogether 27%

Negotiators should try to get the Prime Minister's deal agreed because it is the only remaining chance of getting Brexit through 9%

The Prime Minister should go back to the drawing board and come up with a more acceptable plan by Brexit date of March 29th next year 20%

Delay Article 50 to postpone Brexit and give the Prime Minister as much time as needed to come up with a more acceptable plan 6%

Refuse to make any more concessions with the EU and leave without a Brexit deal if necessary 24%

Don't know 15%

 

Options 3 & 4 are insane because EU negotiations have to be completed long before March 29th, and "acceptable" is a meaningless phrase, it can mean both harder and softer.

 

On the plus side, the number of people wanting a Hard Brexit is less than the numbers of people wanting No Brexit. The numbers of people wanting something in between is nebulous and unclear, but it seems they make up the decisive end-result on any question of Brexit. With only 9% agreeing with the Chequers Plan, never mind what is agreed with the EU, one can guess that virtually the entire country is going to be very unhappy with the final agreement. Or else 24% will be happy with a Hard Brexit. That means the pissed-off 61% will prob vote out the Tories at the first opportunity.

 

Welcome to a Hard Brexit, failing economy run by Jeremy Corbyn with no money to carry out any of his promises, other than to massively increase taxes on the rich to try and attempt as book balance.

 

Sounds like a massive recipe for success.....

It's almost as if asking such a complex question of the general public is perhaps... not a good idea?!

 

You are to assume that it is a short sighted solution when topography is brought into it!!! If this happened in the US, Montana would have 0 senators to New York's 50!! It is an anti democratic right wing coup. Again. And it just so HAPPENS, coincidentally to make the Tories win with less vote share than Labour when otherwise the government is on its way out, probably forever. Disgusting disgusting disgusting Tory party. No other party would be so brazen as the Toey newspapers would tear them a new one. This whole system should be scraped. It should not be reformed as it is undemocratic enough anyway - gerrymandering will be the biggest feat of electoral manipulation since the rotten boroughs the landed gentry proto Tories invented hundreds of years ago. Oh. Same people doing it again now. Okay.

 

From the above rant, you are clearly unaware that the Boundary Commission is politically independent - it was set up that way to minimise accusations of bias.

 

It is demographic shift that alters electorate size, and the longer we go between reviews, the more that favours Labour. The electorate in Labour seats tends to diminish over time, meaning it takes fewer votes to elect Labour MP's and thus making them worth more than Tory ones.

From the above rant, you are clearly unaware that the Boundary Commission is politically independent - it was set up that way to minimise accusations of bias.

 

It is demographic shift that alters electorate size, and the longer we go between reviews, the more that favours Labour. The electorate in Labour seats tends to diminish over time, meaning it takes fewer votes to elect Labour MP's and thus making them worth more than Tory ones.

 

I have explained before that Tory boy elite are all in it together.

 

Please explain what deranged view makes it that the Tories easily win with lower vote shares that other parties? Please explain why it is democratic that Cameron got so many seats whilst having a similar vote share to G Brown? Please explain why Tories should win on 40% but Labour should have 40 less seats than the Landed Gentry at 40%? It is vile and disgusting. It has the hallmarks of a One Party State. It needs to go, not be reworked for Tory favour. I wonder why this Tory boundary review happens now hmm I wonder. It would neeever happ3n under any other party and you k ow it. Disgrace.j

 

The last boundary review took part between 2000 and 2007. Could you remind me what party was in charge during that time period?

And I can guarantee it did not grant Labour 40 magical extra seats from the same vote share

Um they both got the same vote share at the last election and if they are going off the fake polls atm, Labour is ahead.

 

If they force this undemocratic move through, it is official: we live in a Tory dictatorship. Utterly f***ing disgusting. At least I love close enough to Scotland that my city and in fact my entire region would ask to join an independent Scotland. Absolutely vile. It is like they are reading from the Republican/ 1984 hymn sheets.

I am yet to see any actual empirical evidence that:

 

1 / Northumbria would wish to join an independent Kingdom of Scotland

 

Or

 

2 / England would willingly surrender territory to Scotland

 

Or

 

3 / That the aforementioned newly independent Kingdom of Scotland would even want you

I am yet to see any actual empirical evidence that:

 

1 / Northumbria would wish to join an independent Kingdom of Scotland

 

Or

 

2 / England would willingly surrender territory to Scotland

 

Or

 

3 / That the aforementioned newly independent Kingdom of Scotland would even want you

 

1. Polls, untrustworthy I know, have the entire region at 60% support to join

 

2. If this new trend of rule by plebiscite mercurial werrrl errf the petplerr nonsense is to be followed, then it would have to

 

3. Hasn't Scotland said before it would accept cities/ regions if they joined it?

 

What polls, like we tell Vidcapper, let’s see some receipts hun

 

I must admit that I do not recall that ever coming up during the campaign in 2014 or officially from the SNP/ScotGreens. I imagine there was an independent independence debate somewhere that may have made mention of it. I don’t believe that it is currently nationalist policy to except refugee counties fleeing England

What polls, like we tell Vidcapper, let’s see some receipts hun

 

I must admit that I do not recall that ever coming up during the campaign in 2014 or officially from the SNP/ScotGreens. I imagine there was an independent independence debate somewhere that may have made mention of it. I don’t believe that it is currently nationalist policy to except refugee counties fleeing England

 

But we want to be free of this Tory dictatorship so let us innn

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1417796..._join_Scotland/

 

 

I can't find the actual opinion poll now, just this newspaper one which isn't what I was thinking of

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.chronicl...tes-9256499.amp

 

From the above rant, you are clearly unaware that the Boundary Commission is politically independent - it was set up that way to minimise accusations of bias.

 

It is demographic shift that alters electorate size, and the longer we go between reviews, the more that favours Labour. The electorate in Labour seats tends to diminish over time, meaning it takes fewer votes to elect Labour MP's and thus making them worth more than Tory ones.

It is indeed an independent body, but the government sets the rules. The Tories changed the rules so that the size of the electorate (rather than the overall population) was the principal factor. The effect of that was exacerbated by the introduction of individual registration as many voters (predominantly younger voters) were not included in the calculations.

 

They also ended the requirement to have due regard for local communities and called for greater homogeneity. Obviously total homogeneity would be impossible and would be a very bad thing. After all, the logical result of that would be for every constituency to vote in the same way, leading to one party winning all the seats. As it is, grater homogeneity is bound to exaggerate the advantage for whichever party gets the most votes.

 

The intention is that there will be a review in every parliament, rather than every ten years or so as is currently the case. That increases the incumbent's advantage if parties choose not to select their candidates until the boundaries are known. Even with a five-year parliament, that would not be until eighteen months before the election.

 

Of course, all this is another argument for STV. Instead of boundary changes, it would be a simple case of adjusting the number of seats in an individual constituency.

I am yet to see any actual empirical evidence that:

 

1 / Northumbria would wish to join an independent Kingdom of Scotland

 

Or

 

2 / England would willingly surrender territory to Scotland

 

Or

 

3 / That the aforementioned newly independent Kingdom of Scotland would even want you

 

The historical changes for Berwick-upon-Tweed are worth at least looking into. :lol:

The historical changes for Berwick-upon-Tweed are worth at least looking into. :lol:

Funnily enough I had a read through that this afternoon!!

Funnily enough I had a read through that this afternoon!!

 

This is extraordinary. :D

Welcome to the News & Politics forum coi, it's always nice to see new faces in here. Hopefully we'll be seeing more of you around these parts.