politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » How backers of the LAB contenders differ from each other an
Comments
-
The Telegraph is a joke: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11824814/Is-feminism-destroying-the-institution-of-marriage.html
A new survey has shown that women are now initiating 69 per cent of divorces – and they’re increasingly doing it because they claim their husbands don’t pull their weight with housework and childcare.
The report claims that these women are heading to the divorce courts because they’ve been “inspired” by second wave feminist thinking that claims “marriage is inherently hostile to women”.
Before we dismiss this as American claptrap, it's worth pointing out that the picture is similar in Britain. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that there were 118,140 divorces in 2012, 65 per cent of which were granted to women.
Really? It's all the feminists fault that marriage doesn't have a 90% success rate? Maybe these marriages would be a bit more successful if there was a more equal distribution of housework and childcare responsibilities. And I see looking at the comment section, Telegraph misogynists are alive and well.0 -
Headline story on Reporting Scotland this evening?
The unexpected departure of Stephen House...
Did the BBC not get the memo that today's announcement was actually made 3 months ago, or is this just another example of anti-ScottishSNP bias?0 -
That's fighting talk. We'll have to have a hair-off at the next PB meet.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Sorry to lower the tone, but I'm willing to bet I'm hairier than youJosiasJessop said:
Me!Cyclefree said:
Given that there are more male than female PB'ers, I think one of the gentlemen should volunteer to have his naked body draped in fruit..........Financier said:Is this going to be part of the next PB get-together?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11827258/Outrage-over-restaurant-that-used-naked-women-as-fruit-platters.html
Although the food might get a little hair in it...
I was once lying in bed with a girlfriend watching "An American Werewolf in London." The first time the hero changes into a werewolf, she looked at me, looked at the screen, then back at me, and said: "My God, you're hairier than the werewolf!"
I see men with flat, hairless chests and wonder when they're going to reach puberty. 0 -
A lot of discussion in this thread of the 8 million foreign-born people in the country. But there seems to be a lamentable tendency to presume who these people are. Many of the foreign-born were children of British people who happened to be born outside of the country because their parents were, e.g., working overseas for a period. For example, there's a large number of German-born (301,000, 5th by country of birth), but many of them are just army brats, born when their parents were stationed in Germany. Some in the press have noted that Boris Johnson, as another example, was foreign-born, born to 2 English parents during a period they were living in New York. You can add Joanna Lumley and Cliff Richard, both born in India.
Indeed, consider the top 5 countries contributing to this 8 million: these are India (793k), Poland (790k), Pakistan (523k), Ireland (383k) and Germany (301k). There are very different stories behind each of these. India and Pakistan reflect a history of Empire and Commonwealth. Poland is a very different story, a "new" EU state. Germany is a mix of "old" EU connections and the British going to Germany and having kids while there, plus some WWII/pre-WWII refugees. Ireland is our nearest neighbour: there's a particularly high number of Rep. of Ireland-born people in Northern Ireland, which is a story of a shared land border.
When the electorate say they're worried about immigration, they're generally not worried about significant portions of this 8 million. Many first- and second-generation immigrants are so integrated into the dominant culture that nobody sees them as different (e.g., Prince Charles?), while some third-generation immigrants in other communities are more likely to be perceived as "other".0 -
The bananas look under ripe.Financier said:Is this going to be part of the next PB get-together?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11827258/Outrage-over-restaurant-that-used-naked-women-as-fruit-platters.html0 -
@KathViner: Exclusive by @severincarrell: Sturgeon's plan for Scottish BBC based on proposals scrapped by corporation http://t.co/wWrYN3jS2U
The BBC leaked the plans to the SNP
Good move during charter renewal, right?0 -
I also thought that @Richard_Nabavi made quite a good observation that the kind of immigration that is most criticized is non-EU immigration. Yet while many politicians talk the talk, they don't actually walk on the walk on dealing with that issue. Why?
Also, UKIP won't get 100 MPs even if the truth about the immigration situation were said by politicians. People now already doubt politicians ability to deal with that situation, and yet still vote for the big two. Whatever people's feelings on immigration, they don't appear to think UKIP would be a competent government.0 -
Glorious leader???r// poisonous dwarf more like. a serious case of little woman syndrome.Scott_P said:MalcolmG, your glorious leader has a message for you...
@davidtorrance: .@NicolaSturgeon says those who indulge in online abuse are sitting in their bedrooms & have "probably got nae pals" #edtvfest0 -
Seemingly the SLAB regional list cut off date to be eligible to vote was the 13th June 2015. This will blunt the impact of SLAB's Corbynistas on the candidate selection as he hadn't even announced by this date.
http://paulhutcheon.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/kez-not-jez.html?m=1
0 -
So why did UKIP not get any peers? Were they asked to nominate at all? Same for the Greens, although you could imagine a principled stance against it.0
-
Cameron appoints 45 new peers and plans to reduce MPs by 50.
This is democracy, Tory style.0 -
I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.0
-
I'd imagine it would be roughly proportional to the number of seats they currently have. Yeah, the bastards may be out in force for that one.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
0 -
-
Representative in terms of relative party strength.Jonathan said:0 -
I was told of a suggestion that council leaders should automatically be peers. Granted, it was a councillor (though not a leader) who suggested it to me.JEO said:I see more than 90% of the new Lords appointees were MPs, MEPs, councillors or political staff. Isn't it great to have an upper house where we can bring in expertise from outside the political bubble?
0 -
Addressing the original point. It is because these are dissolution honors.kle4 said:
I was told of a suggestion that council leaders should automatically be peers. Granted, it was a councillor (though not a leader) who suggested it to me.JEO said:I see more than 90% of the new Lords appointees were MPs, MEPs, councillors or political staff. Isn't it great to have an upper house where we can bring in expertise from outside the political bubble?
0 -
Eloquently put I say and 100% true.CarlottaVance said:The earthier the rebuttal, the truer the claim?
Nicola Sturgeon has described claims that the threat of the SNP helped the Conservatives win a majority in May’s general election as “bollocks”,
https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/nicola-sturgeon-says-claim-snp-cost-labour-election-bollocks0 -
Would be lots of meat and veg if that was to happenwatford30 said:
An extremely small root vegetable if MalcolmG volunteers to be the dining table.CarlottaVance said:
Courgette.....MarkHopkins said:Cyclefree said:
Given that there are more male than female PB'ers, I think one of the gentlemen should volunteer to have his naked body draped in fruit..........Financier said:Is this going to be part of the next PB get-together?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11827258/Outrage-over-restaurant-that-used-naked-women-as-fruit-platters.html
No madam, that isn't a banana...0 -
Not the first hereditary peer to get a life peerage as well of course.ydoethur said:
The irony being of course that he already has a peerage. So he's twice as noble as everyone else. I'm surprised his moat doesn't burst with pride...isam said:Easy meat for Corbyn?
"Expenses scandal MP given peerage - live
Douglas Hogg, the former Tory MP who claimed for cleaning out his moat on expenses, among former special advisers and Tory donors to be given peerages and honours"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11828053/13.50.html
Well quite. Not that there might not be too many of those types appointed generally, but I'd be interested to know if the ratio is a lot more or only slightly more pronounced than usual.RobD said:
Addressing the original point. It is because these are dissolution honors.kle4 said:
I was told of a suggestion that council leaders should automatically be peers. Granted, it was a councillor (though not a leader) who suggested it to me.JEO said:I see more than 90% of the new Lords appointees were MPs, MEPs, councillors or political staff. Isn't it great to have an upper house where we can bring in expertise from outside the political bubble?
0 -
You must have been looking in the mirror when you posted that. The only Tory in the villageScott_P said:MalcolmG, your glorious leader has a message for you...
@davidtorrance: .@NicolaSturgeon says those who indulge in online abuse are sitting in their bedrooms & have "probably got nae pals" #edtvfest0 -
better than sad little jessie thoughSquareRoot said:
Glorious leader???r// poisonous dwarf more like. a serious case of little woman syndrome.Scott_P said:MalcolmG, your glorious leader has a message for you...
@davidtorrance: .@NicolaSturgeon says those who indulge in online abuse are sitting in their bedrooms & have "probably got nae pals" #edtvfest0 -
Plenty more of us PB Toriesmalcolmg said:
You must have been looking in the mirror when you posted that. The only Tory in the villageScott_P said:MalcolmG, your glorious leader has a message for you...
@davidtorrance: .@NicolaSturgeon says those who indulge in online abuse are sitting in their bedrooms & have "probably got nae pals" #edtvfest 0 -
too farSunil_Prasannan said:
Sorry to lower the tone, but I'm willing to bet I'm hairier than youJosiasJessop said:
Me!Cyclefree said:
Given that there are more male than female PB'ers, I think one of the gentlemen should volunteer to have his naked body draped in fruit..........Financier said:Is this going to be part of the next PB get-together?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11827258/Outrage-over-restaurant-that-used-naked-women-as-fruit-platters.html
Although the food might get a little hair in it...0 -
I think your point is lost on him. The other point is that the HoL is there for life so as Lords finally die they need to be replaced.RobD said:
So you don't approve of the upper chamber being more representative?Jonathan said:Cameron appoints 45 new peers and plans to reduce MPs by 50.
This is democracy, Tory style.
The big big question is that the HoL should be abolished but how? That is how can it be, should it be, replaced.
As long as it does exist, then every new government will have to introduce new Lords - over and above the balance needed by vacancies by death - to reflect better its majority in the commons. If you appoint young Lords then they stay active longer than old Lords so again an incoming govt needs to appoint more.
That is as long as we have a HoL. But no one can agree on reform. Famously Enoch Powell and Michael Foot both conspired together to prevent HoL reform - for entirely different reasons.
Based on that background I think we can treat smart alec comments like the one you just received with the contempt they deserve.0 -
None as dense though and for your sake I hope you live far from his village.RobD said:
Plenty more of us PB Toriesmalcolmg said:
You must have been looking in the mirror when you posted that. The only Tory in the villageScott_P said:MalcolmG, your glorious leader has a message for you...
@davidtorrance: .@NicolaSturgeon says those who indulge in online abuse are sitting in their bedrooms & have "probably got nae pals" #edtvfest0 -
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:0 -
payback timeRobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:0 -
I understand that a naked woman is used as a platter as part of the ceremony of invoking the Devil.SimonStClare said:
Customers were originally offered either sushi, or cottage pie and spotted dick with custard.SquareRoot said:
YUK. YUK YUK (sushi I mean , raw fish is vile and the smell equally so.MattW said:Also in London btw.
The ‘platters’ sensibly opted for the cooler of the two dishes.0 -
The Bear necessities, perhaps?JosiasJessop said:
That's fighting talk. We'll have to have a hair-off at the next PB meet.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Sorry to lower the tone, but I'm willing to bet I'm hairier than youJosiasJessop said:
Me!Cyclefree said:
Given that there are more male than female PB'ers, I think one of the gentlemen should volunteer to have his naked body draped in fruit..........Financier said:Is this going to be part of the next PB get-together?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11827258/Outrage-over-restaurant-that-used-naked-women-as-fruit-platters.html
Although the food might get a little hair in it...
I was once lying in bed with a girlfriend watching "An American Werewolf in London." The first time the hero changes into a werewolf, she looked at me, looked at the screen, then back at me, and said: "My God, you're hairier than the werewolf!"
I see men with flat, hairless chests and wonder when they're going to reach puberty.0 -
For what it's worth I recollect watching a BES podcast about the SNP impact in E&W, at that point they were unable to verify whether the fear of the SNP was what won it for the Tories. I think they still had further data to analyse before reaching a final conclusion.malcolmg said:
Eloquently put I say and 100% true.CarlottaVance said:The earthier the rebuttal, the truer the claim?
Nicola Sturgeon has described claims that the threat of the SNP helped the Conservatives win a majority in May’s general election as “bollocks”,
https://www.holyrood.com/articles/news/nicola-sturgeon-says-claim-snp-cost-labour-election-bollocks0 -
Cameron appointed more Lab/LD peers because it was payback time??malcolmg said:
payback timeRobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:
Hitting the turnip wine early, I see
0 -
It's misguided and goes against the supposed raison d'etre of the Lords to be an independent revising chamber.RobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:
Shut it down.0 -
LOL, get someone to explain the graph to youCarlottaVance said:
You worked out the difference between 'September 2016' and 'December 2015' yet?malcolmg said:Oh Carlotta , look at this on oil price forecasts, how we laughed
https://twitter.com/PoliticsScot0 -
Whoever said the chamber was an "independent" revising chamber? If it were, there'd be no party system in it.Jonathan said:
It's misguided and goes against the supposed raison d'etre of the Lords to be an independent revising chamber.RobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:
Shut it down.0 -
LD Rob, you seem to be turning into Scott by the looks of it , soon you will be able to swing from treesRobD said:
Cameron appointed more Lab/LD peers because it was payback time??malcolmg said:
payback timeRobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:
Hitting the turnip wine early, I see0 -
I'm sure the losers will receive other rewards.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
0 -
Its there as a holiday camp / freeloader for the rejectsRobD said:
Whoever said the chamber was an "independent" revising chamber? If it were, there'd be no party system in it.Jonathan said:
It's misguided and goes against the supposed raison d'etre of the Lords to be an independent revising chamber.RobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:
Shut it down.0 -
I think that proportionally Tories will gain slightly because the population change since last time is generally North -> South and Urban -> Town / Suburban / Rural.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
There will be some who will lose their seats through the reduction in numbers. I think I saw a number that the reduction in Tories might be 15-20 or so.
I think Wales and Scotlandshire are currently overrepresented, Wales more so, so they will lose extras.
0 -
Thanks!malcolmg said:
LD Rob, you seem to be turning into Scott by the looks of it , soon you will be able to swing from treesRobD said:
Cameron appointed more Lab/LD peers because it was payback time??malcolmg said:
payback timeRobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:
Hitting the turnip wine early, I see
Although in all seriousness, I genuinely didn't understand what you meant whey you said payback time.0 -
I'm always surprised that Malcolm doesn't use the authentic Scottish word for turnip - tumshie for anyone interested !!RobD said:
Whoever said the chamber was an "independent" revising chamber? If it were, there'd be no party system in it.Jonathan said:
It's misguided and goes against the supposed raison d'etre of the Lords to be an independent revising chamber.RobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:
Shut it down.0 -
We all know Malcolm is a kind and gentle man. He's using 'turnip' as he knows we'll understand that.calum said:
I'm always surprised that Malcolm doesn't use the authentic Scottish word for turnip - tumshie for anyone interested !!RobD said:
Whoever said the chamber was an "independent" revising chamber? If it were, there'd be no party system in it.Jonathan said:
It's misguided and goes against the supposed raison d'etre of the Lords to be an independent revising chamber.RobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:
Shut it down. 0 -
I will be more specific in future, just thought everyone knew that the perfidious LD's were there to fill their boots.RobD said:
Thanks!malcolmg said:
LD Rob, you seem to be turning into Scott by the looks of it , soon you will be able to swing from treesRobD said:
Cameron appointed more Lab/LD peers because it was payback time??malcolmg said:
payback timeRobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:
Hitting the turnip wine early, I see
Although in all seriousness, I genuinely didn't understand what you meant whey you said payback time.0 -
Barking as ever, you need to get out more and speak to some humans.MattW said:
I think that proportionally Tories will gain slightly because the population change since last time is generally North -> South and Urban -> Town / Suburban / Rural.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
There will be some who will lose their seats through the reduction in numbers. I think I saw a number that the reduction in Tories might be 15-20 or so.
I think Wales and Scotlandshire are currently overrepresented, Wales more so, so they will lose extras.0 -
Ah, okay. Yeha, there were some questionable appointments from their side:malcolmg said:
I will be more specific in future, just thought everyone knew that the perfidious LD's were there to fill their boots.RobD said:
Thanks!malcolmg said:
LD Rob, you seem to be turning into Scott by the looks of it , soon you will be able to swing from treesRobD said:
Cameron appointed more Lab/LD peers because it was payback time??malcolmg said:
payback timeRobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:
Hitting the turnip wine early, I see
Although in all seriousness, I genuinely didn't understand what you meant whey you said payback time.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/08/the-lib-dem-scramble-for-peerages/0 -
You are perceptive Rob , you recognise a gentleman and a scholar when you see one.RobD said:
We all know Malcolm is a kind and gentle man. He's using 'turnip' as he knows we'll understand that.calum said:
I'm always surprised that Malcolm doesn't use the authentic Scottish word for turnip - tumshie for anyone interested !!RobD said:
Whoever said the chamber was an "independent" revising chamber? If it were, there'd be no party system in it.Jonathan said:
It's misguided and goes against the supposed raison d'etre of the Lords to be an independent revising chamber.RobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:
Shut it down.0 -
I assume this is because of the number of people on the electoral roll increased dramatically prior to the indyref?malcolmg said:
Barking as ever, you need to get out more and speak to some humans.MattW said:
I think that proportionally Tories will gain slightly because the population change since last time is generally North -> South and Urban -> Town / Suburban / Rural.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
There will be some who will lose their seats through the reduction in numbers. I think I saw a number that the reduction in Tories might be 15-20 or so.
I think Wales and Scotlandshire are currently overrepresented, Wales more so, so they will lose extras.0 -
Calum, I had to put Swede in brackets in the beginning, it is hard being a missionary.calum said:
I'm always surprised that Malcolm doesn't use the authentic Scottish word for turnip - tumshie for anyone interested !!RobD said:
Whoever said the chamber was an "independent" revising chamber? If it were, there'd be no party system in it.Jonathan said:
It's misguided and goes against the supposed raison d'etre of the Lords to be an independent revising chamber.RobD said:
That's the point of thew new appointments, although quite why they appointed any new Lab/LD peers is beyond me.Jonathan said:
Shut it down.0 -
No just that Matt is not the full shillingRobD said:
I assume this is because of the number of people on the electoral roll increased dramatically prior to the indyref?malcolmg said:
Barking as ever, you need to get out more and speak to some humans.MattW said:
I think that proportionally Tories will gain slightly because the population change since last time is generally North -> South and Urban -> Town / Suburban / Rural.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
There will be some who will lose their seats through the reduction in numbers. I think I saw a number that the reduction in Tories might be 15-20 or so.
I think Wales and Scotlandshire are currently overrepresented, Wales more so, so they will lose extras.0 -
Anyway enough frivolity , I think it is time for a libation before dinner.0
-
Is that a Bank of England Shilling - or an independent Bank of Scotland "shilling" (also known as a penny)?malcolmg said:
No just that Matt is not the full shillingRobD said:
I assume this is because of the number of people on the electoral roll increased dramatically prior to the indyref?malcolmg said:
Barking as ever, you need to get out more and speak to some humans.MattW said:
I think that proportionally Tories will gain slightly because the population change since last time is generally North -> South and Urban -> Town / Suburban / Rural.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
There will be some who will lose their seats through the reduction in numbers. I think I saw a number that the reduction in Tories might be 15-20 or so.
I think Wales and Scotlandshire are currently overrepresented, Wales more so, so they will lose extras.0 -
I look forward to you giving us some statistics on that. Where did the original families go who bought their council house (where they had been paying rents for years and years)? And the houses they bought - where did their owners go? Its amazing that you can conflate so many ignorant bigotries about your fellow man in so many posts.SouthamObserver said:
What we have seen happen is that council tenants buy their properties at subsidised rates then sell them on at full market rates. often to buy to let landlords, who then rent out the properties to immigrants. That is one of the reasons why private landlords are now going to be required to check on the immigration status of their tenants.watford30 said:
BTL creates Ghettos? Best one yet.SouthamObserver said:
Recent immigrants go where it is cheapest to go and that usually means places that are already rundown and deprived. So, urban regeneration is one way, not selling off social and council housing might be another (no buy to let opportunities).Financier said:How do we prevent immigrants creating ghettos?
As the govt points out - ''You'll have to pay back some or all of the discount you got if you sell your Right to Buy home within 5 years of buying it''0 -
I knew I'd seen it. Here is Anthony Wells on new party numbers, writing the day after the Election. Tory losses of MPs fewer than I said.malcolmg said:
Barking as ever, you need to get out more and speak to some humans.MattW said:
I think that proportionally Tories will gain slightly because the population change since last time is generally North -> South and Urban -> Town / Suburban / Rural.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
There will be some who will lose their seats through the reduction in numbers. I think I saw a number that the reduction in Tories might be 15-20 or so.
I think Wales and Scotlandshire are currently overrepresented, Wales more so, so they will lose extras.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/boundary-review
Anyway, a couple of people have asked me how this election would have looked had the revised boundaries proposed in the last Parliament gone through. I’ve done a rough rejig of my provisional boundary calculations using the result of this election, and had the new boundaries gone through the Conservatives would have won 322 seats, nine fewer than they did but enough to give them a healthy majority of 44 in a Commons of 600 MPs. Labour would have won 204 MPs (28 fewer), the SNP 50 seats (and would have pushed Labour out of Scotland entirely) and the Lib Dems just 4.
And here are the losses in seats by region, with Wales and Scotlandshire losing proportionally more to ensure we become more proportionally democratic, as proposed in the Boundary Review last time that was scuppered by the LDs:
http://www.parliament.uk/ImageVault/Images/scope_0/filename_6ilEHYGnCJHbjZb5kJ0Z.jpg/storage_Edited/ImageVaultHandler.aspx
Source:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/parliament-politics/constituency-boundaries/
I'll be interested to see how the numbers on the Scottish ER affect this.
Did it go up by 12%?
0 -
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/boundary-reviewMattW said:
I knew I'd seen it. Here is Anthony Wells on new party numbers, writing the day after the Election. Tory losses of MPs fewer than I said.malcolmg said:
Barking as ever, you need to get out more and speak to some humans.MattW said:
I think that proportionally Tories will gain slightly because the population change since last time is generally North -> South and Urban -> Town / Suburban / Rural.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
There will be some who will lose their seats through the reduction in numbers. I think I saw a number that the reduction in Tories might be 15-20 or so.
I think Wales and Scotlandshire are currently overrepresented, Wales more so, so they will lose extras.
Anyway, a couple of people have asked me how this election would have looked had the revised boundaries proposed in the last Parliament gone through. I’ve done a rough rejig of my provisional boundary calculations using the result of this election, and had the new boundaries gone through the Conservatives would have won 322 seats, nine fewer than they did but enough to give them a healthy majority of 44 in a Commons of 600 MPs. Labour would have won 204 MPs (28 fewer), the SNP 50 seats (and would have pushed Labour out of Scotland entirely) and the Lib Dems just 4.
And here are the losses in seats by region, with Wales and Scotlandshire losing proportionally more to ensure we become more proportionally democratic, as proposed in the Boundary Review last time that was scuppered by the LDs:
http://www.parliament.uk/ImageVault/Images/scope_0/filename_6ilEHYGnCJHbjZb5kJ0Z.jpg/storage_Edited/ImageVaultHandler.aspx
Source:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/parliament-politics/constituency-boundaries/
I'll be interested to see how the numbers on the Scottish ER affect this.
Did it go up by 12%?
Pshaw.... facts!0 -
>Did it go up by 12%?
That should probably say 5%, as the 650 to 600 reductions accounts for 7% of the 12%, so 5% would be the reduction in MPs in Scotlandshire and it would need 5% more electors to roughly compensate.0 -
Pshaw.... facts!RobD said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/boundary-reviewMattW said:
I knew I'd seen it. Here is Anthony Wells on new party numbers, writing the day after the Election. Tory losses of MPs fewer than I said.malcolmg said:
Barking as ever, you need to get out more and speak to some humans.MattW said:
I think that proportionally Tories will gain slightly because the population change since last time is generally North -> South and Urban -> Town / Suburban / Rural.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
There will be some who will lose their seats through the reduction in numbers. I think I saw a number that the reduction in Tories might be 15-20 or so.
I think Wales and Scotlandshire are currently overrepresented, Wales more so, so they will lose extras.
Anyway, a couple of people have asked me how this election would have looked had the revised boundaries proposed in the last Parliament gone through. I’ve done a rough rejig of my provisional boundary calculations using the result of this election, and had the new boundaries gone through the Conservatives would have won 322 seats, nine fewer than they did but enough to give them a healthy majority of 44 in a Commons of 600 MPs. Labour would have won 204 MPs (28 fewer), the SNP 50 seats (and would have pushed Labour out of Scotland entirely) and the Lib Dems just 4.
And here are the losses in seats by region, with Wales and Scotlandshire losing proportionally more to ensure we become more proportionally democratic, as proposed in the Boundary Review last time that was scuppered by the LDs:
http://www.parliament.uk/ImageVault/Images/scope_0/filename_6ilEHYGnCJHbjZb5kJ0Z.jpg/storage_Edited/ImageVaultHandler.aspx
Source:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/parliament-politics/constituency-boundaries/
I'll be interested to see how the numbers on the Scottish ER affect this.
Did it go up by 12%?
It seems to me that Tories are as obsessed with gerrymandering elections as they are banging on about Europe.If they see an election-even the Labour leadership-they just have to gerrymander it.Of course with the HoL they don't have to bother with such niceties.
0 -
2010 Scottish Electoral Roll UK Parliament: 3,928,979
2015 Scottish Electoral Roll UK Parliament: 4,035,394
http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/electoral-statistics/2nd-march-2015/tables-and-figure
=0.9% increase.
Which is probably not significant.
0 -
It seems to me that Tories are as obsessed with gerrymandering elections as they are banging on about Europe.If they see an election-even the Labour leadership-they just have to gerrymander it.Of course with the HoL they don't have to bother with such niceties.volcanopete said:
Pshaw.... facts!RobD said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/boundary-reviewMattW said:
I knew I'd seen it. Here is Anthony Wells on new party numbers, writing the day after the Election. Tory losses of MPs fewer than I said.malcolmg said:
Barking as ever, you need to get out more and speak to some humans.MattW said:
I think that proportionally Tories will gain slightly because the population change since last time is generally North -> South and Urban -> Town / Suburban / Rural.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
There will be some who will lose their seats through the reduction in numbers. I think I saw a number that the reduction in Tories might be 15-20 or so.
I think Wales and Scotlandshire are currently overrepresented, Wales more so, so they will lose extras.
Anyway, a couple of people have asked me how this election would have looked had the revised boundaries proposed in the last Parliament gone through. I’ve done a rough rejig of my provisional boundary calculations using the result of this election, and had the new boundaries gone through the Conservatives would have won 322 seats, nine fewer than they did but enough to give them a healthy majority of 44 in a Commons of 600 MPs. Labour would have won 204 MPs (28 fewer), the SNP 50 seats (and would have pushed Labour out of Scotland entirely) and the Lib Dems just 4.
And here are the losses in seats by region, with Wales and Scotlandshire losing proportionally more to ensure we become more proportionally democratic, as proposed in the Boundary Review last time that was scuppered by the LDs:
http://www.parliament.uk/ImageVault/Images/scope_0/filename_6ilEHYGnCJHbjZb5kJ0Z.jpg/storage_Edited/ImageVaultHandler.aspx
Source:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/parliament-politics/constituency-boundaries/
I'll be interested to see how the numbers on the Scottish ER affect this.
Did it go up by 12%?
Explain how you gerrymander constituencies which are drawn up by an independent commission? I assume you are content with using boundaries based on data which will be over 15 years old at the next election.0 -
2.7% increase actually.MattW said:2010 Scottish Electoral Roll UK Parliament: 3,928,979
2015 Scottish Electoral Roll UK Parliament: 4,035,394
http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/electoral-statistics/2nd-march-2015/tables-and-figure
=0.9% increase.
Which is probably not significant.
0 -
Thanks. Finger trouble on the windows calculator.MikeL said:
2.7% increase actually.MattW said:2010 Scottish Electoral Roll UK Parliament: 3,928,979
2015 Scottish Electoral Roll UK Parliament: 4,035,394
http://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/electoral-statistics/2nd-march-2015/tables-and-figure
=0.9% increase.
Which is probably not significant.
So that should mean 1 less constituency in Scotlandshire, asssuming it is done on registered voters and subject to changes in Englandshire and Walesshire.
0 -
Explain how you gerrymander constituencies which are drawn up by an independent commission? I assume you are content with using boundaries based on data which will be over 15 years old at the next election.RobD said:
It seems to me that Tories are as obsessed with gerrymandering elections as they are banging on about Europe.If they see an election-even the Labour leadership-they just have to gerrymander it.Of course with the HoL they don't have to bother with such niceties.volcanopete said:
Pshaw.... facts!RobD said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/boundary-reviewMattW said:
I knew I'd seen it. Here is Anthony Wells on new party numbers, writing the day after the Election. Tory losses of MPs fewer than I said.malcolmg said:
Barking as ever, you need to get out more and speak to some humans.MattW said:
I think that proportionally Tories will gain slightly because the population change since last time is generally North -> South and Urban -> Town / Suburban / Rural.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
There will be some who will lose their seats through the reduction in numbers. I think I saw a number that the reduction in Tories might be 15-20 or so.
I think Wales and Scotlandshire are currently overrepresented, Wales more so, so they will lose extras.
Anyway, a couple of people have asked me how this election would have looked had the revised boundaries proposed in the last Parliament gone through. I’ve done a rough rejig of my provisional boundary calculations using the result of this election, and had the new boundaries gone through the Conservatives would have won 322 seats, nine fewer than they did but enough to give them a healthy majority of 44 in a Commons of 600 MPs. Labour would have won 204 MPs (28 fewer), the SNP 50 seats (and would have pushed Labour out of Scotland entirely) and the Lib Dems just 4.
http://www.parliament.uk/ImageVault/Images/scope_0/filename_6ilEHYGnCJHbjZb5kJ0Z.jpg/storage_Edited/ImageVaultHandler.aspx
Source:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/parliament-politics/constituency-boundaries/
I'll be interested to see how the numbers on the Scottish ER affect this.
Did it go up by 12%?
Some Labour activists believe that they have the right to wield power, regardless of electoral results. Thus, by denying them that right, you are depriving them of what is rightfully theirs.0 -
Yawn - not another night about downtrodden women. Enough already.The_Apocalypse said:The Telegraph is a joke: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11824814/Is-feminism-destroying-the-institution-of-marriage.html
A new survey has shown that women are now initiating 69 per cent of divorces – and they’re increasingly doing it because they claim their husbands don’t pull their weight with housework and childcare.
The report claims that these women are heading to the divorce courts because they’ve been “inspired” by second wave feminist thinking that claims “marriage is inherently hostile to women”.
Before we dismiss this as American claptrap, it's worth pointing out that the picture is similar in Britain. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that there were 118,140 divorces in 2012, 65 per cent of which were granted to women.
Really? It's all the feminists fault that marriage doesn't have a 90% success rate? Maybe these marriages would be a bit more successful if there was a more equal distribution of housework and childcare responsibilities. And I see looking at the comment section, Telegraph misogynists are alive and well.0 -
It seems to me that Tories are as obsessed with gerrymandering elections as they are banging on about Europe.If they see an election-even the Labour leadership-they just have to gerrymander it.Of course with the HoL they don't have to bother with such niceties.volcanopete said:
Pshaw.... facts!RobD said:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/category/boundary-reviewMattW said:
I knew I'd seen it. Here is Anthony Wells on new party numbers, writing the day after the Election. Tory losses of MPs fewer than I said.malcolmg said:
Barking as ever, you need to get out more and speak to some humans.MattW said:
I think that proportionally Tories will gain slightly because the population change since last time is generally North -> South and Urban -> Town / Suburban / Rural.The_Apocalypse said:I wonder out of those 50 MPs, how many affected by the changes will be Conservative? I recall reading some months ago that plans to reduce the number of MPs had caused a bit of an issue with Tory MPs.
There will be some who will lose their seats through the reduction in numbers. I think I saw a number that the reduction in Tories might be 15-20 or so.
I think Wales and Scotlandshire are currently overrepresented, Wales more so, so they will lose extras.
Anyway, a couple of people have asked me how this election would have looked had the revised boundaries proposed in the last Parliament gone through. I’ve done a rough rejig of my provisional boundary calculations using the result of this election, and had the new boundaries gone through the Conservatives would have won 322 seats, nine fewer than they did but enough to give them a healthy majority of 44 in a Commons of 600 MPs. Labour would have won 204 MPs (28 fewer), the SNP 50 seats (and would have pushed Labour out of Scotland entirely) and the Lib Dems just 4.
And here are the losses in seats by region, with Wales and Scotlandshire losing proportionally more to ensure we become more proportionally democratic, as proposed in the Boundary Review last time that was scuppered by the LDs:
http://www.parliament.uk/ImageVault/Images/scope_0/filename_6ilEHYGnCJHbjZb5kJ0Z.jpg/storage_Edited/ImageVaultHandler.aspx
Source:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-parliament-2015/parliament-politics/constituency-boundaries/
I'll be interested to see how the numbers on the Scottish ER affect this.
Did it go up by 12%?
The population trend is one that has benefited Lab since about 1994 and is now working the other way iirc.
Night all.0 -
Easy. You gerrymander the figures that are the basis for the calculations - so you introduce individual voter registration (believing that Tories are more stable and more likely to get registered). Then you bring forward the date for cutting off new registrations. The Tories have got all this sort of thing well sussed out - they know what they are doing.RobD said:Explain how you gerrymander constituencies which are drawn up by an independent commission? I assume you are content with using boundaries based on data which will be over 15 years old at the next election.
Gerrymandering the figures for the Boundary Commission. Very easy.
Then they boast about winning.0 -
Individual voter registration is not gerrymandering it is just being responsible in the face of prior voting fraud. Any responsible adult regardless of political allegiance can easily register to vote - if you think others are "too unstable" (in your words) to bother to register to vote then that's their inaction not gerrymandering.PClipp said:
Easy. You gerrymander the figures that are the basis for the calculations - so you introduce individual voter registration (believing that Tories are more stable and more likely to get registered). Then you bring forward the date for cutting off new registrations. The Tories have got all this sort of thing well sussed out - they know what they are doing.RobD said:Explain how you gerrymander constituencies which are drawn up by an independent commission? I assume you are content with using boundaries based on data which will be over 15 years old at the next election.
Gerrymandering the figures for the Boundary Commission. Very easy.
Then they boast about winning.0 -
You mean the individual voter registration which, er, boosted registrations?PClipp said:
Easy. You gerrymander the figures that are the basis for the calculations - so you introduce individual voter registration (believing that Tories are more stable and more likely to get registered). Then you bring forward the date for cutting off new registrations. The Tories have got all this sort of thing well sussed out - they know what they are doing.RobD said:Explain how you gerrymander constituencies which are drawn up by an independent commission? I assume you are content with using boundaries based on data which will be over 15 years old at the next election.
Gerrymandering the figures for the Boundary Commission. Very easy.
Then they boast about winning.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/190464/IER-June-report.pdf0 -
I would take an opposite view and increase MPs to 750 and abolish the HoL. MPs would have to work out how they design a committee to carry out the work of a revising chamber if they think they need one (composition pro rata votes or seats?).MattW said:>Did it go up by 12%?
That should probably say 5%, as the 650 to 600 reductions accounts for 7% of the 12%, so 5% would be the reduction in MPs in Scotlandshire and it would need 5% more electors to roughly compensate.
This will kill several birds with one stone as the HoP need billions to be spent on refurbishment. it can be refurbished with a view to only having one chamber, with possibly the Lords being used for the revising committee and creating more office space for MPs. The monarch could still open parliament from the 'Lords' chamber.
I see no point to a Lords or a Senate. If a revising (plus maybe an advisory) committee thinks it needs additional members then maybe people can be appointed 'Legates' (?) according to votes by that committee's members. Irrespective of votes in committee parliament (incl the 150) would have a final say in any dispute.
Its not unusual for committee stage to vote against a govt so nothing at all unprecedented.0 -
Actually I said "Touché." As in I recognised you'd made a good point at my expense, so I rephrased as I obviously made a mistake the first time. Which I recognised and gave you kudos for not twisted.isam said:
Sorry but that's nonsensePhilip_Thompson said:
Don't be silly, that's virtually like a Godwin. If the only difference between Corbyn and the Conservatives was the subject of immigration then I'd be happy to agree with Corbyn. But you and I both know its not remotely the only difference. Even fools are right sometimes.isam said:
Yes that made you look even worse. Agreeing with the party because you define yourself as a supporter of, even when you actually agree with CorbynPhilip_Thompson said:
I responded at the time something along the lines of "Touché. I meant a serious (Conservative) politician. Boris Johnson I think shares that view but as he wants to be leader isn't really being vocal on the subject anymore." I'd add that when BoJo was being vocally pro-migration he was viewed as a non-serious politician.isam said:isam • Posts: 15,655
August 24 • edited August 24
Philip_Thompson said:
I'm saying we should judge any agreement made at face value. Though the EU-exit associate membership Cameron rightly rejected that you seem outraged at still requires open doors migration with the EU.
As for 2020, Dave will be gone. I'd love a politician to say the truth - migration is a good thing and we should be proud of the fact people choose to live in our country. But that really is a pipe dream that is never going to happen." I'd love a politician to say the truth - migration is a good thing and we should be proud of the fact people choose to live in our country. But that really is a pipe dream that is never going to happen."
isam said:
Jeremy Corbyn said it last week
You said:
"I'd love a politician to say the truth - migration is a good thing and we should be proud of the fact people choose to live in our country. But that really is a pipe dream that is never going to happen."
A politician in the news at the moment has said exactly that... he just happens to be from a different party to the one you are a cheerleader for, so you twisted and turned and said "I had my fingers crossed"0 -
I think the measure was supported by the LDs - like many other measures of the coalition. What a sad, bitter and twisted world is that of the beaten Liberal democrat. LMFAOPClipp said:
Easy. You gerrymander the figures that are the basis for the calculations - so you introduce individual voter registration (believing that Tories are more stable and more likely to get registered). Then you bring forward the date for cutting off new registrations. The Tories have got all this sort of thing well sussed out - they know what they are doing.RobD said:Explain how you gerrymander constituencies which are drawn up by an independent commission? I assume you are content with using boundaries based on data which will be over 15 years old at the next election.
Gerrymandering the figures for the Boundary Commission. Very easy.
Then they boast about winning.0 -
Oh no, people are now responsible to ensure they are registered. The humanity!Philip_Thompson said:
Individual voter registration is not gerrymandering it is just being responsible in the face of prior voting fraud. Any responsible adult regardless of political allegiance can easily register to vote - if you think others are "too unstable" (in your words) to bother to register to vote then that's their inaction not gerrymandering.PClipp said:
Easy. You gerrymander the figures that are the basis for the calculations - so you introduce individual voter registration (believing that Tories are more stable and more likely to get registered). Then you bring forward the date for cutting off new registrations. The Tories have got all this sort of thing well sussed out - they know what they are doing.RobD said:Explain how you gerrymander constituencies which are drawn up by an independent commission? I assume you are content with using boundaries based on data which will be over 15 years old at the next election.
Gerrymandering the figures for the Boundary Commission. Very easy.
Then they boast about winning.0 -
Correct.Philip_Thompson said:
Individual voter registration is not gerrymandering it is just being responsible in the face of prior voting fraud. Any responsible adult regardless of political allegiance can easily register to vote - if you think others are "too unstable" (in your words) to bother to register to vote then that's their inaction not gerrymandering.PClipp said:
Easy. You gerrymander the figures that are the basis for the calculations - so you introduce individual voter registration (believing that Tories are more stable and more likely to get registered). Then you bring forward the date for cutting off new registrations. The Tories have got all this sort of thing well sussed out - they know what they are doing.RobD said:Explain how you gerrymander constituencies which are drawn up by an independent commission? I assume you are content with using boundaries based on data which will be over 15 years old at the next election.
Gerrymandering the figures for the Boundary Commission. Very easy.
Then they boast about winning.
Its pretty clear already that the rise in Corbynmania has been accompanied by a marked lowering of the standard of lefty debate. The principal standard being lowered is an adherence to the facts and to the truth.0 -
Voter registration takes 5 minutes online!!RobD said:
Oh no, people are now responsible to ensure they are registered. The humanity!Philip_Thompson said:
Individual voter registration is not gerrymandering it is just being responsible in the face of prior voting fraud. Any responsible adult regardless of political allegiance can easily register to vote - if you think others are "too unstable" (in your words) to bother to register to vote then that's their inaction not gerrymandering.PClipp said:
Easy. You gerrymander the figures that are the basis for the calculations - so you introduce individual voter registration (believing that Tories are more stable and more likely to get registered). Then you bring forward the date for cutting off new registrations. The Tories have got all this sort of thing well sussed out - they know what they are doing.RobD said:Explain how you gerrymander constituencies which are drawn up by an independent commission? I assume you are content with using boundaries based on data which will be over 15 years old at the next election.
Gerrymandering the figures for the Boundary Commission. Very easy.
Then they boast about winning.
I mean, deary me, that is short enough for anyone's attention span.
No surprise really that registrations went up, was it? And maybe we even boosted participation because people who'd had to register themselves felt more invested (just a little) than those registered by parent or Uni.0 -
It's evil baby-eater gerrymandering, don't you know.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Voter registration takes 5 minutes online!!RobD said:
Oh no, people are now responsible to ensure they are registered. The humanity!Philip_Thompson said:
Individual voter registration is not gerrymandering it is just being responsible in the face of prior voting fraud. Any responsible adult regardless of political allegiance can easily register to vote - if you think others are "too unstable" (in your words) to bother to register to vote then that's their inaction not gerrymandering.PClipp said:
Easy. You gerrymander the figures that are the basis for the calculations - so you introduce individual voter registration (believing that Tories are more stable and more likely to get registered). Then you bring forward the date for cutting off new registrations. The Tories have got all this sort of thing well sussed out - they know what they are doing.RobD said:Explain how you gerrymander constituencies which are drawn up by an independent commission? I assume you are content with using boundaries based on data which will be over 15 years old at the next election.
Gerrymandering the figures for the Boundary Commission. Very easy.
Then they boast about winning.
I mean, deary me, that is short enough for anyone's attention span.
No surprise really that registrations went up, was it? And maybe we even boosted participation because people who'd had to register themselves felt more invested (just a little) than those registered by parent or Uni.0 -
Apologies Philip, quoted the wrong post. Meant to quote PClip's.RobD said:
Oh no, people are now responsible to ensure they are registered. The humanity!Philip_Thompson said:
Individual voter registration is not gerrymandering it is just being responsible in the face of prior voting fraud. Any responsible adult regardless of political allegiance can easily register to vote - if you think others are "too unstable" (in your words) to bother to register to vote then that's their inaction not gerrymandering.PClipp said:
Easy. You gerrymander the figures that are the basis for the calculations - so you introduce individual voter registration (believing that Tories are more stable and more likely to get registered). Then you bring forward the date for cutting off new registrations. The Tories have got all this sort of thing well sussed out - they know what they are doing.RobD said:Explain how you gerrymander constituencies which are drawn up by an independent commission? I assume you are content with using boundaries based on data which will be over 15 years old at the next election.
Gerrymandering the figures for the Boundary Commission. Very easy.
Then they boast about winning.0 -
No worries, I took it as you agreeing with me humorously anyway.RobD said:
Apologies Philip, quoted the wrong post. Meant to quote PClip's.RobD said:
Oh no, people are now responsible to ensure they are registered. The humanity!Philip_Thompson said:
Individual voter registration is not gerrymandering it is just being responsible in the face of prior voting fraud. Any responsible adult regardless of political allegiance can easily register to vote - if you think others are "too unstable" (in your words) to bother to register to vote then that's their inaction not gerrymandering.PClipp said:
Easy. You gerrymander the figures that are the basis for the calculations - so you introduce individual voter registration (believing that Tories are more stable and more likely to get registered). Then you bring forward the date for cutting off new registrations. The Tories have got all this sort of thing well sussed out - they know what they are doing.RobD said:Explain how you gerrymander constituencies which are drawn up by an independent commission? I assume you are content with using boundaries based on data which will be over 15 years old at the next election.
Gerrymandering the figures for the Boundary Commission. Very easy.
Then they boast about winning.0 -
Also, just noticed our own JohnO was overlooked for a peerage for his services to the railway industry.0
-
new thread
0 -
@PClipp
'Easy. You gerrymander the figures that are the basis for the calculations - so you introduce individual voter registration (believing that Tories are more stable and more likely to get registered). Then you bring forward the date for cutting off new registrations.'
So your definition of gerrymandering is voters that can't be arsed to register.
Are you having a laugh or just prefer voter fraud ?0 -
0
-
I need to point out that the report on which the article is based does not refer to a trend: it says that 69% of the divorces investigated were initated by the wife, but it does not say what the percentage was in previous years.The_Apocalypse said:The Telegraph is a joke: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11824814/Is-feminism-destroying-the-institution-of-marriage.html
A new survey has shown that women are now initiating 69 per cent of divorces – and they’re increasingly doing it because they claim their husbands don’t pull their weight with housework and childcare.
The report claims that these women are heading to the divorce courts because they’ve been “inspired” by second wave feminist thinking that claims “marriage is inherently hostile to women”.
Before we dismiss this as American claptrap, it's worth pointing out that the picture is similar in Britain. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that there were 118,140 divorces in 2012, 65 per cent of which were granted to women.
Really? It's all the feminists fault that marriage doesn't have a 90% success rate? Maybe these marriages would be a bit more successful if there was a more equal distribution of housework and childcare responsibilities. And I see looking at the comment section, Telegraph misogynists are alive and well.
I also need to point out that the Telegraph article subconsciously acknowledges this when the author states "...when speaking to...divorce lawyers...Vanessa Lloyd-Platt.
She told me...UK divorces – almost all of which were initiated by women...". This anecdote matches what more than one lawyer acquaintance of mine has said: namely, that in England and Wales, wives initiate divorces, not husbands. The point is not that this level is growing, it's that this level has always been big. If feminism is destroying marriages,[1] it's been doing it for several decades now...
[1] I doubt it: I think it's humans that destroy marriages, and any complainants about the characteristics of men or women should really consider whether they're suited to heterosexuality.
0 -
500th!
On a closing note, I think we've find a group of voters whose views are more otherworldly than UKIPs.......may they enjoy as much success getting their hands on the levers of power.....0
