Looks like the newly created Witham constituency Will be lost. Probably to Chelmsford or Saffron Waldon, I'd imagine. There's am MP looking at no job all of a sudden.

Thinking about that a bit - good. I will do MPs good to know what job uncertainty means. Especially now.

I have seen the local boundaries for my county and while most make sense we have one long windy constituency which makes little sense. Fewer MP's might be good, though I doubt that it will have the desired effect. Remember when a government has power they will now have fewer seats so the chances are that a bigger proportion of MP's will be cabinet ministers or under secretaries. So there will be less chance of backbench revolts. What is needed are far fewer cabinet posts. No undersecretaries or lacky ministers.

Also by slashing the electoral rolls if PR is ever implemented it will lower the threshold for 50% of voters supporting the winner.

That is predicated on an assumption that those who can't be arsed to add themselves to the roll could somehow be relied upon to actually vote. Which is obviously rubbish.


Erm, about this revolution thing?

I accept that. Though when you consider how few MP's actually have 50% of their constituency actually support them this will lower that threshold very easily. We only have to look at the US at the next stage of voter disenfranchisement to see where this is leading.

Firstly, you clearly have no apparent understanding of what disenfranchisement is. It's revocation of a fundamental right to vote, not the trivial inconvenience of having to fill out a form to get the slip.

Secondly, your fetish for melodramatic Cassandra prophecies is leading you to seriously exceed the evidence. You have no access to any sinister plan to undermine democracy, you simply infer one from a perceived direction of travel. The problem is that your perception of such is not valid; it could only be so if...
a: You had knowledge of a master plan being hatched by those competent to carry it out (which is not the case)
or
b: you were able to present an argument that this minor event somehow entails as a logical necessity whatever apocalypse of nonsense you are going on about.

Either way, you would have to have something much better than that gibberish to justify your dark assertion. All you have got is a bad case of paranoia.

Just because you're mad, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

I am probably being paranoid but the Tories do have a history of seriously dubious policies. This may be nothing more than an administrative procedure but we have no idea of what plans might be brought in at a later date. Also one little change on its own might be nothing but when you look at the entirety of the direction then I start to have misgivings. The US has been slowly removing voting rights over the last twenty odd years. Why not here? If this were any other party I might ignore it. But this is the original nasty party, the Tories that are doing it. As for undermining democracy they may only want to secure a majority next time, hence the squeeze on the Liberals in the boundary changes. Also this may not get them the majority they want anyway. I suspect that the economy will collapse before the next election consigning them to the dustbin next election anyway.

Nice you mentioned Cassandra because even though she was right no one believed her.

Thats called paranoia when there is no or little evidence to support it.

Right, so the previous incumbents that over saw some of the biggest decreases in civil liberties is not nasty, saw the biggest rise in the gap between the wealthiest and poorest in society but still not nasty, entered a highly dubious and could be illegal war that has seen hundreds of thousands displaced, wounded and killed but thats not nasty. Had a policy that lead directly to Dr Kelly killing himself but thats not nasty. Introduced a tax that has lead to the practical end of final salary pension schemes in the private sector that will lead hundreds of thousands of people dependent on the state in their old age.
But thats ok only one party can be nasty and the others are sweeter than a sweet thing in a sweet place.




So you are saying the above people are all under the influence of the Conservative party and are doing their bidding, even though they were appointed during Labours reign as the governing party? Wow the powers of the Tories really knows no bounds, as the remit of the boundary commission is to be impartial.

The last Labour government were not angels either. Now there is a ban on a general strike brought in by Labour and the CCTV state, so no I am not happy with them either but they were not really a left wing party were they?

Well if you take it back to the 19h Century Corn Laws, I suppose you are right. Post-war, I would say honours are roughly even in that area though.

Now you are directly contradicting yourself. One minute it's "we have only to look...", next it's "we have no idea". At what stage do you propose to make your mind up?

So at the very least you are culpable of panic and hyperbole. You have no evidence of any direction of travel. Furthermore, as I have pointed out, there is no hint of disenfranchisement in this proposal, yet you persist in assuming that people are engaging in this solely because you don't like them. This is the logic of fanaticism - you don't share somebody's agenda, therefore you assume they are hell bent on works of utter evil. Nobody it seems could possibly be decent and not in full agreement with you.

Voter registration and rights are handled in a completely different way in America than they are here. Your argument is lazy, you need to show how what happens there under a dissimilar system is likely to be transposed here. Not an easy task given that this change does not include importing their systems.

That's just ad hominem. Face it, you are being the nasty one here. You are dehumanizing your political opponents because you aren't nice enough to accept that people could disagree with your views unless they are involved in acts of unspeakable evil. This sort of tribal viciousness is what they do in America, and it's another import we ought to avoid.

I'll admit I thought of that, but hoped I'd get away with it. Perhaps in your case I should have awarded a title of Chicken Little.

On the dubya dubya dubya the Tories are nasty and labour are great. (or democrat and republican depending on what part of the internetz you live in) and there's no point discussing otherwise, we should have all learnt this by now.

The fundamental problem is they're all politicians.
Hence, can't be trusted.

It would seem Australia would see it differently.

Official statistics indicate that China disagrees (100%). More information is required before we can break that logical deadlock.

Helps to prevent the diffusion of responsibility caused by large population groups, perhaps.