Is the sexual orientation of a judge relevent?

This is how it was reported in the Independent, Jess.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boundary-review-650-600-mps-cut-bill-pat-glass-momentum-a7425021.html

My MP put forward the PMB.

Like you, Jess, I'd never thought about the size of a constituency until the boundaries were mentioned.
Strangely enough, neither had Theresa May or she wouldn't have read out those figures.

The government defeat does not seem to have been reported by the media anywhere that I can find.

Lots and lots of conservatives voted against the government last night. 257 to 37 was the vote.
Unusual turnout for a PMB i would think!

Of course the proposed boundary changes will be strongly challenged, as they would be to the Conservative party's advantage. The same would apply if the boot was on the other foot.

and therefore would be forced to expand.
so would they take a bit off the next constituency - which could have a knock-on effect, or encourage people to move there, have more babies?

It was from an old report in the Birmingham Post when the boundary changes were first proposed.

It just seems like a waste of money to me.

TBH Jalima it is only the planned boundary changes that alerted me to the size of an average constituency. Ours is currently a bit smaller than average at 70K and therefore would be forced to expand. Of course that includes the under 18s...
Seems to indicate that PM does not read her PMQ answers until the last minute.
For anyone worried about the boundary changes - a chink of light. There was a private members bill to put a stop to the process yesterday and he government was defeated very heavily - so unlike most PMBs it will progress to the next stage.
PM has ditched a few of Cameron's policies - I wonder if she will do so with this one? Apparently it will cost a fortune.

Exactly Petra my thoughts too.

Most people would be unaware that the figure of 88,000 was incorrect
But surely not - I would have thought that most people would know that any constituency averages about 60-70,000!

People aren't that daft.
And if they are that daft they would not be listening or reading about it or it would go over the top of their head.

But just as an aside Brownhills is not a part of the Black country. It is between Cannock and the City of Lichfield.
I'm sure you know that Jalima but others on GN may not

Yes, I thought it wasn't, and it's a very nice area - but when I checked to see if it was in the Black Country the site(s) I checked said it was
Apologies if it is not!
The term Black Country is disputed anyway, either named because of the industries in the area or because the ground was black - because of the coalmining in the area.

According to the Birmingham Post in 2011 in an article on constituency changes in 'The Black Country':
The smallest constituency in the region is Aldridge-Brownhills, represented since 1979 by independent-minded Conservative Richard Shepherd, with just 59,506 voters, according to the Boundary Commission for England.

Eloethan I don't often disagree with you, but, when you say that many people think that we will be awash with money, I find the opposite.
Many people I know expect us to have a rough ride for a while. But hey, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs

I think it's safe to say that your not like most people, bags.

I am thinking of people who went to pick up their normal paper and saw a very large headline next to it that said that 95% of jobs went to foreigners. It was in the Times, they will be thinking, so it must be true.
I can't wait for the headline, "Sorry, 95% of jobs did not go to foreigners."

Most people would be unaware that the figure of 88,000 was incorrect and would retain the very positive impression that that statement conveyed.

So far as the boom in consumer spending is concerned, in January this year, the Independent reported:

"Shock new figures today revealed that household debt [excluding mortgages} has soared by two-fifths in just six months [Aviva's Family Finance Report].

"...the average debt is now 13,520, from 9,520 last summer

"Average credit card debt is now £2,370 and overdrafts £1,190.

".. couples with two or more children have the most debt at £18,830.

The Money Charity and other charities have warned that as rents keep rising and incomes continue to stagnate or fall in real terms many people are relying on borrowing to make up the shortfall.

Whilst I think it is important to try to think positively as to what the future of the UK will be, I think that many people in the UK are getting swept up with the notion that when we leave the EU we will be awash with money and jobs. Given the personal debt situation, this false sense of security could be very dangerous.

It didn't breed any in me, dj, because when I read a statement like that headline, I start out with my bullshitometer at its highest measure point. Having said that, I understand what you're saying.

Bags, it's not just whether they were called foreigners or foreign-born. It's the fact that the headline said 95% of them were foreigners. It's actually just over 50%. Two mistakes in one headline. It breeds fear about immigrants.

Cherrytree, the problem is that she said there were 88,000 more people in work in the constituency. There aren't that many people living in it. Those stats are definitely wrong; impossible in fact.

Interesting thread
But just as an aside Brownhills is not a part of the Black country. It is between Cannock and the City of Lichfield.
I'm sure you know that Jalima but others on GN may not
Historically it was a mining area and when mines closed there was large unemployment
Now however new houses have been built and there is work again in the surrounding area.
People are able to commute to work via Motorways such as M6 and dare I say it the toll motorway also by railway links to other towns & cities

The people I know who live in Brownhills are happy and optimistic for the future of the area

So the stats maybe wrong.
But there is plenty employment opportunities in the area

This is an interesting article. Why is the UK obsessed with net migration? Why does it matter so much?
If the figures come down over the next few years, it will be because the UK is not such a good place to work for both immigrants and indigenous people.

theconversation.com/britains-obsession-with-net-migration-makes-it-a-global-anomaly-67093

No, it's okay, I trust Fullfact to dissect an article correctly. I would like to know when the Times puts its correction in and where. Nowadays if there is a mistake on the front page it is expected to be corrected on the front page.
Can't imagine they will do a corect headline, though.
It's a headline that matters. People who buy other papers will see that headline and take note of it, particularly if it confirms their prejudices.

The terms used in the article are (1) foreign-born, (2) workers born overseas.

Here are two opposing 'theories' in the article:

Jonathan Portes, a fellow at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said: “The figures once again illustrate that with unemployment at very low levels most of the growth in the labour force — and hence of the economy as a whole — relies on foreign-born workers. Of course, the implication of this is that substantial reductions in immigration, resulting from Brexit or from the government’s efforts to cut immigration more generally, will hit growth and tax receipts.”

Other experts said that companies seeking to fill vacancies were helped by a supply of cheap labour available for hire without the need to increase wages. John Philpott, director of the research consultancy Jobs Economist, said: “Most of the additional supply of labour is coming from abroad and employers are taking advantage of that. They might be filling existing vacancies, but often employers are creating additional opportunities and they can do that without increasing wages.”

Both sides of the story fairly covered, it seems to me, and a wrong header.

Let me know if you want the whole article copied and pasted but I'm going to bed now so it'll have to wait.

The first sentence of the article in question did say, as I pointed out earlier, that the article was talking about "foreign-born" workers, not foreigners. The heading or title of the article was wrong. I think headlines are written by someone other than the article writers. If that is what happened, perhaps that's why there is the discrepancy between the heading and the content.

It could be a non-deliberate deception. I'm going to read the article again...

This is what it says about corrections and clarifications:

"The Times takes complaints about editorial content seriously. We are committed to abiding by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (”IPSO”) rules and regulations and the Editors’ Code of Practice that IPSO enforces. Requests for corrections or clarifications should be sent by email to [email protected] or by post to Feedback, The Times, 1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF."

Times being put right by Fullfact. Not that the Times will be bothered. They probably got their point across to those they wanted to.

fullfact.org/economy/foreigners-working-uk/

Does the Times have to publish corrections, bags, on the front page if the article was on the front page?

It's all lies for the first 50 years or so anyway.

Who knew ever? It's safest to be sceptical about most things one reads in newspapers. That's why I prefer the comment sections—one gets opinions rather than distorted facts.

And it's the opinions I'm interested in—ideas, y'know.