Why do Tories need so many seats to avoid hung Parliament?
Discussion
The telegraph has a useful little tool based on 2005 election results and current boundaries.
It seems that the minimum number of seats needed for a clear majority is 325.
But, this requires a swing of circa 7%, resulting in 330 Cons seats and 230 labour seats. It would seem that the Tories need 38% of the vote compared to Labours 29% to ensure a majority.
Seems a bit daft to me. Stinks, in fact.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
It seems that the minimum number of seats needed for a clear majority is 325.
But, this requires a swing of circa 7%, resulting in 330 Cons seats and 230 labour seats. It would seem that the Tories need 38% of the vote compared to Labours 29% to ensure a majority.
Seems a bit daft to me. Stinks, in fact.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politic...
Simply put because Labour have been fixing the constituency boundaries so that Tory votes are easily lost.
It's called gerrymandering
It's called gerrymandering
Puggit said:
Simply put because Labour have been fixing the constituency boundaries so that Tory votes are easily lost.
It's called gerrymandering
Its also known by the folowing term:It's called gerrymandering
Election Fixing.
Edited by gamefreaks on Friday 5th March 11:29
they have bought so many votes thats why.....the whole of the public sector will vote labour but their tell everyone else their voting to get labour out, benefit families receiving free computers and crap treated like their the future of the contree will vote labour as they love money for nothing, a lot of immigrants will vote labour so they can bring their families for the free benefits.....
I thought Gerimandering was a known Conservative policy of the past....???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Porter
or has this been forgotten?
For the OP, the conservatives need a wider turn in the vote accross the UK in order to gain power. Theres no point in winning 30% of the seats by a large majority unless you can also win seats with high traditional labour voters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Porter
or has this been forgotten?
For the OP, the conservatives need a wider turn in the vote accross the UK in order to gain power. Theres no point in winning 30% of the seats by a large majority unless you can also win seats with high traditional labour voters.
Tony*T3 said:
I thought Gerimandering was a known Conservative policy of the past....???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Porter
or has this been forgotten?
For the OP, the conservatives need a wider turn in the vote accross the UK in order to gain power. Theres no point in winning 30% of the seats by a large majority unless you can also win seats with high traditional labour voters.
Labour are practising the policy on a national scale, not a local government scale!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Porter
or has this been forgotten?
For the OP, the conservatives need a wider turn in the vote accross the UK in order to gain power. Theres no point in winning 30% of the seats by a large majority unless you can also win seats with high traditional labour voters.
Basically the problem the Tories have is that a huge proportion of their voting base is tied up into a small number of ultra-safe seats. The danger is that all their extra share of the vote is added into the already-safe Tory seats.
And at the same time they are not close enough to Labour in many urban constituencies to win on a small swing.
Fact is, the Tories aren't doing enough to win over the urban vote. The reality is, that the UK is an urban-based population. Unfortunately for PH that means that anti-car parties WILL do ok.
And at the same time they are not close enough to Labour in many urban constituencies to win on a small swing.
Fact is, the Tories aren't doing enough to win over the urban vote. The reality is, that the UK is an urban-based population. Unfortunately for PH that means that anti-car parties WILL do ok.
ninja-lewis said:
Fittster said:
Well if CMD wasn't so f
king wishy-washy he'd say "If I'm elected I'll address the West Lothian Question". That would keep England free of socalism.
Not unless you stop voting for Labour. Labour have a majority of seats in England.king wishy-washy he'd say "If I'm elected I'll address the West Lothian Question". That would keep England free of socalism.ShadownINja said:
So there's a good chance Gordon Mugabe will remain president for the next four years, then?
Its up to you, all of you, to do something about it.He will probably regain power with a ineffectual majority or hung parliament and we will all wake up on may 7th and remember he is a weak naive bully with no ideas of what to do about the credit card bill he has run up. The markets will fall, the pound will slide causing serious devaluation of our currency which will push up inflation and further harm foreign investment, and at the next interest rate review the rates will start the climb upwards to tackle the inflation problem. Jobs will be lost, Darling be the first, replaced by the slithery Ed Balls, and they will hunker down in no.10 for 5 years blaming everyone else for the problems they have caused.
But there will be 5 years for us all to think about it.
Chemical Ali said:
ShadownINja said:
So there's a good chance Gordon Mugabe will remain president for the next four years, then?
Its up to you, all of you, to do something about it.He will probably regain power with a ineffectual majority or hung parliament and we will all wake up on may 7th and remember he is a weak naive bully with no ideas of what to do about the credit card bill he has run up. The markets will fall, the pound will slide causing serious devaluation of our currency which will push up inflation and further harm foreign investment, and at the next interest rate review the rates will start the climb upwards to tackle the inflation problem. Jobs will be lost, Darling be the first, replaced by the slithery Ed Balls, and they will hunker down in no.10 for 5 years blaming everyone else for the problems they have caused.
But there will be 5 years for us all to think about it.
knut has already put the boot into my pension plan big time. A dose of Stagflation will see me working till I'm 90.Tony*T3 said:
I thought Gerimandering was a known Conservative policy of the past....???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Porter
or has this been forgotten?
For the OP, the conservatives need a wider turn in the vote accross the UK in order to gain power. Theres no point in winning 30% of the seats by a large majority unless you can also win seats with high traditional labour voters.
Google TCM's grandpa, Herbert Morrison; he aimed to make the Conservatives history in London by building great swathes of public housing in marginal constituencies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Porter
or has this been forgotten?
For the OP, the conservatives need a wider turn in the vote accross the UK in order to gain power. Theres no point in winning 30% of the seats by a large majority unless you can also win seats with high traditional labour voters.
Chemical Ali said:
ShadownINja said:
So there's a good chance Gordon Mugabe will remain president for the next four years, then?
Its up to you, all of you, to do something about it.He will probably regain power with a ineffectual majority or hung parliament and we will all wake up on may 7th and remember he is a weak naive bully with no ideas of what to do about the credit card bill he has run up. The markets will fall, the pound will slide causing serious devaluation of our currency which will push up inflation and further harm foreign investment, and at the next interest rate review the rates will start the climb upwards to tackle the inflation problem. Jobs will be lost, Darling be the first, replaced by the slithery Ed Balls, and they will hunker down in no.10 for 5 years blaming everyone else for the problems they have caused.
But there will be 5 years for us all to think about it.
If you are of pension age, or near to it, you are seen as traditional Tory and therefore he doesn't care about you and your pension. So I am afraid, you are probably right.
I am just disappointed that Cameron wont stand up and argue the point for protecting the elderly, with issues such as inheritance tax. He seems to shy away from the argument, and I cant see why. Anything wealth that passes upon death has already been taxed at least once, usually multiple times. For example, your house, bought for with income (taxed), stamp duty on purchase and council taxed throughout its life, improvements and maintenance taxed (VAT and income tax on all money spent), and taxed on mortgage payments (income tax for you and corporation tax and business taxes paid by the bank). So why, when you have contributed towards society must your death be taxed again?
Simply because left wing politics and the lazy anti capitalist scroungers, and I know a few because they live in my houses and always have an excuse, are jealous because you have money. They are too stupid and lazy to understand you worked for it and paid tax in order to give them a house and an endless supply of benson and hedges for which to croak their displeasure at not having more of your money.
And if any of you left wing ideologist disagree, come and see me and I will take you round these places!
I am just disappointed that Cameron wont stand up and argue the point for protecting the elderly, with issues such as inheritance tax. He seems to shy away from the argument, and I cant see why. Anything wealth that passes upon death has already been taxed at least once, usually multiple times. For example, your house, bought for with income (taxed), stamp duty on purchase and council taxed throughout its life, improvements and maintenance taxed (VAT and income tax on all money spent), and taxed on mortgage payments (income tax for you and corporation tax and business taxes paid by the bank). So why, when you have contributed towards society must your death be taxed again?
Simply because left wing politics and the lazy anti capitalist scroungers, and I know a few because they live in my houses and always have an excuse, are jealous because you have money. They are too stupid and lazy to understand you worked for it and paid tax in order to give them a house and an endless supply of benson and hedges for which to croak their displeasure at not having more of your money.
And if any of you left wing ideologist disagree, come and see me and I will take you round these places!
Chemical Ali said:
I am just disappointed that Cameron wont stand up and argue the point for protecting the elderly, with issues such as inheritance tax. He seems to shy away from the argument, and I cant see why. Anything wealth that passes upon death has already been taxed at least once, usually multiple times. For example, your house, bought for with income (taxed), stamp duty on purchase and council taxed throughout its life, improvements and maintenance taxed (VAT and income tax on all money spent), and taxed on mortgage payments (income tax for you and corporation tax and business taxes paid by the bank). So why, when you have contributed towards society must your death be taxed again?
Cameron's job is to get elected.To be liable to IHT you need an estate worth upwards of £600k (in most cases).
How many non-Tory voters do you think have estates bigger than this that Cameron can convince to vote for him instead of the other parties?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff