[the truth]

I think both miliblands were useless.....they've learnt nothing. honestly any remotely charismatic labour leader should beable to crush the tories after 5 years of austerity but milibland will probably lose a seemingly un-losable election.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by the truth

I think both miliblands were useless.....they've learnt nothing. honestly any remotely charismatic labour leader should beable to crush the tories after 5 years of austerity but milibland will probably lose a seemingly un-losable election.

A bit unfair, this election should not even have had Labour in the running to win it, it is rare any party after losing an election can come back in one go,
It has only happened once since the war,Labour losing power in 1970 then returning,albeit just, in 1974.

However the only person who has in fact failed to win a comfortable majority in an election that should have been a walkover to do so, is David Cameron in 2010, with in total disarray the Labour govt; 13 years in power and a disastrous elecrion campaign too for them.
Yet Cameron failed to even come close to an overall majority.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

A bit unfair, this election should not even have had Labour in the running to win it, it is rare any party after losing an election can come back in one go,
It has only happened once since the war,Labour losing power in 1970 then returning,albeit just, in 1974.

However the only person who has in fact failed to win a comfortable majority in an election that should have been a walkover to do so, is David Cameron in 2010, with in total disarray the Labour govt; 13 years in power and a disastrous elecrion campaign too for them.
Yet Cameron failed to even come close to an overall majority.

new labour created an army of over 5 million people who would never work abd would always be on benefits who would always vote labour. they also moved some boundaries. its also important to note they had a huge majority going into those elections.....however this time around whilst they should be winning they will probably end up losing. today was a MAJOR disaster for milibland. whereas the tories have done nothing for the working classes too

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by the truth

new labour created an army of over 5 million people who would never work abd would always be on benefits who would always vote labour. they also moved some boundaries. its also important to note they had a huge majority going into those elections.....however this time around whilst they should be winning they will probably end up losing. today was a MAJOR disaster for milibland. whereas the tories have done nothing for the working classes too

I disagree with just about all that,plenty unemployed were created and lives wasted for decades from the Conservative govts of 1983 onwards.

Labour if it had such votes as you say, it didn't do them any good in the 1983,1987 and 1992 elections.

I also think you may actually be surprised at the number of people you call on benefits,who acually don't vote Labour at all.

AS for boundary changes, they rarely benefit Labour anyway.
Labour's 65+ overall majority in 2005, would have been reduced to around 55 after the boundary changes done in that parliament.
Also had the Lib Dems not blocked the boundary changes laid out in this parliament, that would have reduced the seats Labour had again as prospective holds.

Boundary changes as I said, rarely,if ever are to Labour's benefit at all.

[the truth]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;7658854]I disagree with just about all that,plenty unemployed were created and lives wasted for decades from the Conservative govts of 1983 onwards.

Labour if it had such votes as you say, it didn't do them any good in the 1983,1987 and 1992 elections.-
neil kinnock never had a chance , theyd bankrupted the nation the unions out of control again, he was also considered too bald too ginger and too welsh

I also think you may actually be surprised at the number of people you call on benefits,who acually don't vote Labour at all.
-pls provide evidence of this? it contradicts all my findings
AS for boundary changes, they rarely benefit Labour anyway.
Labour's 65+ overall majority in 2005, would have been reduced to around 55 after the boundary changes done in that parliament.
Also had the Lib Dems not blocked the boundary changes laid out in this parliament, that would have reduced the seats Labour had again as prospective holds.

Boundary changes as I said, rarely,if ever are to Labour's benefit at all

that's simply untrue

from the 2005 general election, when Tony Blair’s Labour won 35.2 per cent of the popular vote, compared to 32.4 per cent for the Conservatives.

Despite the fact that the difference between the total votes cast for both parties were very small, Labour ended up with 355 seats and the Tories got just 198. That’s 55 per cent compared to 30 per cent.

[Kizzy]

What do you want, him juggling chainsaws while tightrope walking with flaming torches sticking out of his crack?

At least reserve judgement until after the debates.

[Kizzy]

No.... Thatcher created welfare dependency when she removed industry from Britain.

[Kizzy]

How about changing the boundries on elections so you can fleece the country for an extra year?

[Kizzy]

Didn't the tories attempt this a while ago?...

How would different parts of the UK be affected?
Under the plans, Wales would lose 10 seats, Scotland would lose seven seats, Northern Ireland two seats and England 31 seats.
The figures for English regions are given below (percentage reductions in brackets):
North East to lose three seats (-10%)
North West to lose seven seats (-9%)
West Midlands to lose five seats (-8%)
Yorkshire and the Humber to lose four seats (-7%)
London to lose five seats (-7%)
South West to lose two seats (-4%)
East Midlands to lose two seats (-4%)
Eastern England to lose to seats (-3%)
South East to lose one seat (-1%).

Note how the areas affected are not tory strongholds.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19166125

Good job they failed

'Plans to redraw constituency boundaries before 2015, backed by the Tories, have been defeated in the House of Commons.
MPs voted by 334 to 292 to accept changes made by peers, meaning the planned constituency shake-up will be postponed until 2018 at the earliest.
It was the first time Lib Dem ministers have voted against their Conservative coalition colleagues in the Commons.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21235169

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Didn't the tories attempt this a while ago?...

How would different parts of the UK be affected?
Under the plans, Wales would lose 10 seats, Scotland would lose seven seats, Northern Ireland two seats and England 31 seats.
The figures for English regions are given below (percentage reductions in brackets):
North East to lose three seats (-10%)
North West to lose seven seats (-9%)
West Midlands to lose five seats (-8%)
Yorkshire and the Humber to lose four seats (-7%)
London to lose five seats (-7%)
South West to lose two seats (-4%)
East Midlands to lose two seats (-4%)
Eastern England to lose to seats (-3%)
South East to lose one seat (-1%).

Note how the areas affected are not tory strongholds.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19166125

Good job they failed

'Plans to redraw constituency boundaries before 2015, backed by the Tories, have been defeated in the House of Commons.
MPs voted by 334 to 292 to accept changes made by peers, meaning the planned constituency shake-up will be postponed until 2018 at the earliest.
It was the first time Lib Dem ministers have voted against their Conservative coalition colleagues in the Commons.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21235169

labour have always done it too and as my facts prove the voting boundaries suit labour more than anyone

[Kizzy]

Sorry, which facts are these?

[Kizzy]

Here is how it split as of 2010..
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/swingometer-map

Area demographic ( select your own area)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/leedswest/

[Kizzy]