Ed V Dave - 9pm on C4 & Sky News

[Johnsonontheleft]

Labour & the constituency boundaries are like the rags & FFP - it's unbelievably skewed in their favour. The Tories lose out big time because they start off 20-30 seats behind Labour before a vote has been cast. Totally unfair & even the Guardian admits that.

 

[Len Rum]

Labour & the constituency boundaries are like the rags & FFP - it's unbelievably skewed in their favour. The Tories lose out big time because they start off 20-30 seats behind Labour before a vote has been cast. Totally unfair & even the Guardian admits that.

LOL.
Blame 'call me Dave'.
He couldn't get agreement with the Lib Dems on House of Lords reform so they in turn didn't support his boundary 'reforms'.
Simples.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Labour & the constituency boundaries are like the rags & FFP - it's unbelievably skewed in their favour. The Tories lose out big time because they start off 20-30 seats behind Labour before a vote has been cast. Totally unfair & even the Guardian admits that.

To be fair that probably cancels out the right wing media which spreads "facts" and surely gives the Tories a 20 or 30 seat head start.

 

[Paulpowersleftfoot]

Labour & the constituency boundaries are like the rags & FFP - it's unbelievably skewed in their favour. The Tories lose out big time because they start off 20-30 seats behind Labour before a vote has been cast. Totally unfair & even the Guardian admits that.

To be fair that probably cancels out the right wing media which spreads "facts" and surely gives the Tories a 20 or 30 seat head start.

The left wing media which includes the BBC has a much larger audience to preach its bullshit to. To suggest the sun and the telegraph gives the Tories a 20 or 30 seat head start is simply a ridiculous statement

 

[Len Rum]

Labour & the constituency boundaries are like the rags & FFP - it's unbelievably skewed in their favour. The Tories lose out big time because they start off 20-30 seats behind Labour before a vote has been cast. Totally unfair & even the Guardian admits that.

To be fair that probably cancels out the right wing media which spreads "facts" and surely gives the Tories a 20 or 30 seat head start.

The left wing media which includes the BBC has a much larger audience to preach its bullshit to. To suggest the sun and the telegraph gives the Tories a 20 or 30 seat head start is simply a ridiculous statement

"which includes the BBC"
The old lie.

 

[union city blue]

Labour & the constituency boundaries are like the rags & FFP - it's unbelievably skewed in their favour. The Tories lose out big time because they start off 20-30 seats behind Labour before a vote has been cast. Totally unfair & even the Guardian admits that.

To be fair that probably cancels out the right wing media which spreads "facts" and surely gives the Tories a 20 or 30 seat head start.

The left wing media which includes the BBC has a much larger audience to preach its bullshit to. To suggest the sun and the telegraph gives the Tories a 20 or 30 seat head start is simply a ridiculous statement

I'm sorry but the prize for most ridiculous statement goes to you for wheeling out the old fairytale, much loved by frothing right-wingers, of left wing bias in the BBC.

This is the BBC whose Chairman, Chris Patten, is a former Chairman of the Conservative Party.
The BBC whose Political Editor, Nick Robinson, is a former Chairman of the Young Conservatives.
The BBC whose flagship politics programme, Daily Politics, is presented by Andrew Neil, Chairman of The Spectator magazine.

This "left wing" BBC was found in a recent study by Cardiff University to massively favour Conservative politicians on its news programmes, with Tory appearances outstripping those of Labour politicians on news programmes by 4-1.
The left wing BBC where business representatives appear on news programmes 19 times more frequently than trade union representatives.

Just because the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph regularly claim the BBC is a hotbed of pinkos doesn't make it so. The fact that they do so with nauseating regularity is simply a tactic to moderate the BBC's output - a tactic that the BBC's respected Business Editor, Robert Peston, has recently written about when he stated that the BBC was "routinely so anxious of being accused of being left wing that it often veers in what you might call a pro-establishment, rather right wing direction so it's not accused of that".

The myth of a left wing BBC is one furiously peddled by right wingers to constrain the BBC's output and make it fearful of accusations of left wing bias. The reason they keep doing it is because it works, as the research by Cardiff University proves.

 

[Johnsonontheleft]

Labour & the constituency boundaries are like the rags & FFP - it's unbelievably skewed in their favour. The Tories lose out big time because they start off 20-30 seats behind Labour before a vote has been cast. Totally unfair & even the Guardian admits that.

To be fair that probably cancels out the right wing media which spreads "facts" and surely gives the Tories a 20 or 30 seat head start.

Nice deflection. Utter bollocks of course, but that rarely matters.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Labour & the constituency boundaries are like the rags & FFP - it's unbelievably skewed in their favour. The Tories lose out big time because they start off 20-30 seats behind Labour before a vote has been cast. Totally unfair & even the Guardian admits that.

Which is why the last time Labour won, they polled 3% more than the Tories and yet had 357 seats vs 198 (or thereabouts, I can't remember the exact numbers). If the Tories poll 3% higher than Labour this time, they won't have anything like that sort of advantage.

 

[Len Rum]

Labour & the constituency boundaries are like the rags & FFP - it's unbelievably skewed in their favour. The Tories lose out big time because they start off 20-30 seats behind Labour before a vote has been cast. Totally unfair & even the Guardian admits that.

Which is why the last time Labour won, they polled 3% more than the Tories and yet had 357 seats vs 198 (or thereabouts, I can't remember the exact numbers). If the Tories poll 3% higher than Labour this time, they won't have anything like that sort of advantage.

Life's a woman isn't it mate.
Actually fewer people tend to turn out in the seats Labour wins, meaning it uses it's votes more efficiently.This explains the disconnect between the votes cast and seats won.
I'm all for creating new boundaries to reflect the census estimates of population rather than electoral registration.
I'm sure you will agree.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Labour & the constituency boundaries are like the rags & FFP - it's unbelievably skewed in their favour. The Tories lose out big time because they start off 20-30 seats behind Labour before a vote has been cast. Totally unfair & even the Guardian admits that.

To be fair that probably cancels out the right wing media which spreads "facts" and surely gives the Tories a 20 or 30 seat head start.

The left wing media which includes the BBC has a much larger audience to preach its bullshit to. To suggest the sun and the telegraph gives the Tories a 20 or 30 seat head start is simply a ridiculous statement

Yeah right, the Daily Mail, The Times, The FT, The Telegraph and the Sun (add their circulations up, if you want to gauge their clout) are all Tory supporting papers. The Express and The Daily Star, rather ludicrously, says they support UKIP (sort of) but they are a right wing papers pushing the usual right wing BS.

The Guardian supports the Liberal Democrats, when it supports anyone, and is anti Labour without being pro Tory. The Independent? it's a case of who cares with a circulation so low, but whatever it is it isn't Labour. That leaves the Mirror as the only Labour supporting paper (though I sometimes think they believe Harold Wilson still leads the Labour Party).

Sky is right wing, subtly (and not so subtly) pushing the pro Tory line. As for the BBC, to state it has a left wing bias is ludicrous, with Andrew Neil (ex Times) and Nick Robinson (ex head of the Young Conservatives) and now we learn of Paxman's politics, the BBC eats at the right wing trough it just doesn't gorge itself.

As for boundary changes, there is a truth that you'd struggle to find in the mainstream media....

http://www.theguardian.com/public-l...rs-individual-electoral-registration-disaster

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/15/shocked-mps-electoral-register-shake-up

In leafy Kensington and rural Norfolk, the Tory voting middle classes are (for the most part) on the electoral register but in the inner cities there are millions that are not and the Tories do everything they can to ensure it stays that way, but constituency MP's must represent all the people in their constituency not just those on the register or those that vote. Everyone at Westminster knows that Labour MP's have always carried a much larger load of the "hidden" than their Tory counterparts. The only way boundary changes can be "honest and fair" is if a concerted effort on a national scale were undertaken to get as many people as possible on the register, but of course the exact opposite has happened under this government.

Boundary changes without a registration push is nothing more than gutter gerrymandering.