Jump to content

8 June

Nigello

By Nigello
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

Trinnydad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's not going to end well

> >

>

> And will get worse as the Tories will push through the revised constituency boundaries when/if they

> get back in. It will be more of an uphilll struggle then.


To be fair, they are currently rather unfairly biased towards Labour. Under the current boundaries, Labour can get a majority with a significantly smaller vote share. (Let's not get into the weaknesses of FPTP).


I'm not actually sure why the government of the day gets any say in this, anyway. The Boundaries Commission should be completely independent.

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted
You say the boundaries favour Labour, but at the last election the Tories got one seat for every 34,234 people who voted for them, while Labour only got one for every 40,290 voters. Also, the new constituencies have been drawn up on the basis of the electoral register as of December 2015: this was after the Tories had introduced the new individual registration system (to replace the previous household registration system) which meant around 800,000 people dropped off the electoral register - a disproportionate number of them young, working class and from BME backgrounds - hardly the Tories' natural catchment. Since then, due to the referendum effect, two million new voters have registered, but the new constituencies won't reflect their distribution: for example it's estimated that the new Lewisham constituencies will be based on an electoral register missing around 20% of those currently registered to vote in them. By basing the size of the new constituencies on the number of people registered to vote in them, not the number of people actually living in them, the Tories have ensured a bias - not large, but a bias nonetheless - towards their own favoured middle class demographic. It is gerrymandering, really. You're quite right of course in saying no government should have a say in the process - I'm sure a Labour government would have got round to skewing things in its favour as well.
titch juicy

titch juicy

Posted
Posted

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not a matter of seats; it's a matter of vote

> share. If the Lib Dem vote share jumps -

> especially in London -

> that is the message. Look at the hassle UKIP

> increasing its vote share to 14-15% caused.

> Imagine if the Lib Dems started polling 20% in

> urban areas.

>

> And anyway, never say never ... look at what

> happened in the Richmond by-election - a 23,000

> majority overturned. It can be done.



It's a matter of both, for different reasons.


The seat puts the person in parliament, the vote share sends a message.


And increasing the Lib Dems vote share has to start somewhere. If everyone only voted for the two parties most likely to get in, they will forever only be the two parties that will ever get in.


They get an increased share this time, it may influence more people to get behind them for the next London local elections and then the next GE after that.

malumbu

malumbu

Posted
Posted

I worked in fair trading in the early 00s and had it beaten into me that comptetitive markets were the best way of delivering services, stimulating the economy and that intervention was BAAADDD. And that private enterprise was better than state provision. Of course Tony Blair was a disciple of Margaret Thatcher. And May a disciple of Milliband. Bless.


I'm sure I could pick holes in the Labour manifesto but this one is really rich. Perhaps we should never have privitised energy markets in the first place. Hands up East Dulwich who pocketed a lot of cash out of this. Not me!

jaywalker

jaywalker

Posted
Posted

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Teresa May. The Conservative Party 'if elected'

> will reduce Energy Prices..

>

> Why haven't they done that in the past 2 years.

> ?

>

> Call me old fashioned ..

>

> Fox.


May is acting in bad faith here (plus ?a change, plus c'est la m?me chose). She must some time ago have been briefed that we have an impending energy supply crisis due to lack of investment. Just announcing lower prices will 1. ensure further curtailment of investment 2. MUCH higher costs of energy in the medium to longer term. But I guess she doesn't care - (it is unlikely she is too stupid to do the calculation). Cue millions of adoring fans of her 'strong' leadership on this issue (as with so many others).


(BTW, yes, I would renationalise the energy supply business, tomorrow, before lunch, and with only minimal compensation.)

malumbu

malumbu

Posted
Posted

Ordinary working families need strong and stable leadership and ordinary working families need to be protected from those dreadful energy giants. I would expect ordinary working people to have the sense and knowledge to shop around and switch suppliers. Obviously they haven't got the time as ordinary working familes must spend all their time on working and family matters. These ordinary working families are already being targeted by the price comparison web sites.


Now as for the old, vulnerable etc. There is probably a case for intervention. But ordinary working families with strong and stable leaders?


I'm getting peed off with the whole thing. And Jezza following the line that we have a clear mandate to leave Europe. Forgetting the lies, the lack of a coherent stay campaign, and his flipin lack of inspiration and clear message.


Well he got what he wanted and should vote for strong and stable leadership.

Borky

Borky

Posted
Posted
Old labour and the tankie lite element were always anti EEC/whatevs. of course the EU was a capitalist facilitator mincing machine. Those of a certain age may remember that up and coming Labour starlet Anthony Blair campaigned in Sedgefield on a unilateral nuke disarm and anti Europe platform - this was SOP at the time. Didn't take him long to change direction obvs - the years between 83 and 97 changed the Biology of the EU animal hugely .
malumbu

malumbu

Posted
Posted

The One Show was fingers down the throat time. I suppose on the positive it was less fingers down the throat than Maggie and Dennis.


I was on LBC once on a consumer programme in an official capacity. I have a face for radio. I wanted to start my bit off by saying that I was surprised they still existed. I'd lived in London for well over ten years at that point amd wasn't aware of it. I thought that LBC was something that my older relatives had listened to in the 70s and had ceased broadcasting after inappropriate comments following the death of a pope John Paul I in 1978 after only a month in office.


I understand that is is more relevant now.

jaywalker

jaywalker

Posted
Posted

Perhaps Corbyn actually is one?


BBC tonight has May on a massive three figure majority (by tracking the kind of constituencies she is targeting with her visits - ones with very large Labour (sic) majorities).


The general population do not want socialism, they want Brexit, they crave 'strong leadership' for 'ordinary working families' and an 'end to immigration'. May's parish-pump politics promises all this. By default they will vote for tuition fees, reduced welfare benefits, sharply rising energy bills (the cap causing a collapse in investment) a chronic shortage of labour in key sectors (the NHS, schooling), inhuman and insane spending on nuclear weapons, and the shameless incarceration of extraordinary numbers of people designated as refuse.


There have been calls for newly elected labour MPs to decamp and set up a new party just after the election. Perhaps those newly-elected Tories who are pro Europe, anti fox-hunting, anti the obvious divisiveness of grammar schools, and whose social conscience is real rather than simulated might like to join them?

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> sharply rising energy bills (the cap causing a collapse in

> investment)


I don't think it will. They are only capping the standard variable rate, so what it will do is put the energy price up of anyone who has been smart enough to switch suppliers on a regular basis.

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've just read the 'leaked' manifesto. I think

> Corbyn has actually given up.

>

> He seems to have gone for the old 90's Lib Dem

> strategy of 'let's just chuck any old s*** in -

> we're not going to get elected so we'll never have

> to actually implement any of crap anyway'.


What's the "crap" you object to? More police officers, no tuition fees, investment in public housing, increased spending on NHS, more spending on social care? Why not wait to see the promised costed figures before just dismissing it?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...