Judicial review has joined death and taxes as one of the unavoidable circumstances of life. Cumbria, like England, if full of people who want to heat homes, travel by air and train and drive cars (all made with lots of steel) but are opposed to each and every way in which these can be brought about.
This one is for the steel. Aiui, UK steel making will basically go extinct along with a bunch of other subsidiary industries without the coal or imports of coal which the government is (was) being stupid about.
“What these data show is that promoting lies about the 2020 election is profitable for both candidates and social media platforms themselves,” the article said. . . .
You can see why the election-denial train keeps chugging along. It has countless enablers. And countless more making bank.
So, sure, recount the votes. It won’t make a whit of difference in the outcome. But unfortunately, even proving the count was solid won’t snap many election doubters back to reality.
The only way to end this con? Stop giving the con artists money.
SSI - Grifters gotta grift.
You would have more credibility on this subject if you also criticised the cottage industry that sprung up with the aim of delegitimising the 2016 election result.
Ah yes, who can forget when Hillary refused to turn up at President Trump's inauguration, and declared it a "steal"?
Nevertheless a lot of people made money pushing the idea that Trump wasn't a legitimate president and she didn't exactly discourage them.
Democrat Hillary Clinton refused to rule out challenging the legitimacy of last year’s presidential election in an interview released Monday afternoon, though she said such a move would be unprecedented and legally questionable.
So she should have said it didn't matter whether or not it was Russian government involvement in the US election that caused Trump to win, at least not once His Presidentialness had been sworn into office? She should have said that is a most disgraceful question and at a time like this we must all join together in singing Hail to the Chiefski? It's worth remembering that she conceded on the night and attended the inauguration in January and she made these comments only a lot later once allegations of Russian influence had been made. The alternatives seem to be that either she was right or else such footling allegations shouldn't ever be taken seriously.
So we need an English parliament to allow Sunday Trading in England?
Pretty thin gruel.
Sunday trading should be a decision made at county and metro level, anyway.
We need an English Parliament (or simply to ban Scottish MPs from voting on devolved matters) to ensure that English laws are determined in England.
Democracy trumps any gruel. Sunday Trading and Top Up Fees are simply examples of where it has already mattered, despite the Government typically* having a healthy majority post-devolution.
*2010-2015 was a very healthy Government majority as the Government included both parties of the Coalition. 2017-19 obviously was not.
Any more examples?
And fees were when it was Labour and the LDs dominating in Scotland, in both parliaments, IIRC. So it's not a SNP versus the Rest issue.
Its not a matter of party politics, its a matter of democracy.
Scottish MPs voting on matters they weren't elected to deal with (because its a devolved matter) in a different country is fundamentally undemocratic.
If its a shared issue, so Scottish MPs vote on English matters and English MPs vote on Scottish ones, because its dealt with UK-nation-wide through Parliament then that is democratic. But if MPs can't vote because its devolved to Holyrood then it doesn't matter if the MPs are red, yellow, blue, green, orange or any other colour.
Democracy matters more than party politics.
Point taken. Yet it's basically because Westminster has that dual role. Always going to be debate at where the edge lies. I'm actually surprised it doesn't happen more often.
I think it doesn't happen more often because usually the government has enough of a majority in England to overcome non-English votes on English matters.
But "usually" is not "always".
And the dual role is exactly the problem, and it is resolved entirely by devolving English matters to an English Parliament. If that parliament then wants to devolve further to regions/counties/cities, that should be up to it to do so.
Beg to differ: we'd hear a *lot* about non-English votes on English matters these days, even if they lost.
Just wondering: did the DUP ever vote on English-only matters? They were really opposed to EVEL as they saw it as destroying the unity of the UK.
I'm not sure that's true in the current parliament, because there would need to be a big English Tory rebellion on an issue for the non-English vote to matter. The assumption is that the non-English MPs are voting against the government by a large majority.
I still think we'd hear complaints even if the vote didn't matter. It's a sensitive enough issue. And the opposition, or at least Labour, would complain if it were the other way round, too. They have [edit] half as many MPs in Scottish constituencies as Alba.
Pretty clear slant in the reporting of it, but I am actually surprised the decision was taken. I assume an attempted legal challenge is already on its way.
The UK government has approved the first new coal mine in 30 years despite concern about its climate impacts among Conservative MPs and experts.
Hats off the the Government, I did NOT think they had the balls or the brains to do this. I gained a shred of hope when they delayed the decision till after COP, that it might be a Yes and they didn't want to do it then as there might be questions over the canapes. This is GOOD NEWS, WELL DONE SUNAK.
ChatGPT just helped me complete a seriously tricky project which might otherwise have taken days or weeks. Did it in hours. It is superb for brainstorming
Let us enjoy this sweet spot when we can collaborate with the machines, before they get so clever they take over everything and turn us into funny pets
'If you’re shocked about the Michelle Mone story, wait till you find out that a firm owned by the finance manager of Michael Gove’s 2016 Tory leadership campaign won £170m in PPE deals.
After being referred to the PPE VIP lane by the office of… Michael Gove.'
Goodness me, whoever could have foreseen that telling Scots to STFU, that their votes don't matter, and that they can't control their own future democratically might have been counterproductive to the Union? 🤔
It isn't, as long as the UK government can refuse indyref2 as the Supreme Court confirmed there is a 100% chance it stays in the UK, see Spain and Catalonia.
As soon as indyref2 is allowed there is a 50% chance Scotland votes for independence even before this poll however.
So this Tory government should refuse indyref2 indefinitely. If Labour get in and grant one it is their problem to win it
Another independence referendum is inevitable given that the SNP keep winning Holyrood elections.
The ostrich-like mentality of the Tories to reject this reality only makes the Union losing the next referendum more likely.
No it isn't, Catalan nationalists keeping winning Catalan elections, Madrid has still refused them even 1 independence referendum.
It is also more likely there is a Yes vote under a Tory UK government than a Labour UK government, so it is in Unionists interests for only a Labour government to ever grant indyref2
You really do not have any idea how pathetic it is to claim it in Unionist interests to keep denying Scots indyref2 when such denial makes independence more likely
If the trend continues towards the SNP then those of us who value the union but also democracy need to grant the Scots their wish and win the argument
It is just reality. If there was an indyref2 tomorrow, it is more likely than not the Scots would narrowly vote Yes, especially with a Tory UK government as well as post Brexit.
If indyref2 is delayed until say 2026-29 under a Starmer led Labour government offering devomax it is probably more likely Scots would narrowly vote No.
If they still vote Yes then of course the Tories can switch overnight to become an English Nationalist Party taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. So the Tories have no interest in allowing an indyref2 now whether Unionists or English Nationalists, their interest is to leave it to Starmer and Gordon Brown to sort out.
After all Labour created Holyrood in the first place which enabled the SNP to gain their powerbase
I reckon the Labour Party are likely to get two terms in office, given the size of their impending victory
And I further reckon Labour will grant indyref2 in that 2nd term, with a Devomax option, as you say. By then - the early 2030s - the generation argument will no longer apply. By then, if Scots still want a vote, it must be granted, and Labour will do so
"the generation argument" ... no I can't even muster an "lol"
I've explained till I'm blue in the face why that's a complete nonsense but you guys still churn it out like robots. It reminds me of that scene in Spinal Tap where the gonzo lead guitarist is boasting about his superloud instrument.
"It goes up to eleven." "Yeah but that doesn't mean it's actually any louder than other guitars." "What?" "It depends on the scale. For example your eleven could equal somebody else's ten." (few seconds silence) "This one goes up to eleven."
What you believe doesn't really matter, does it? You're a retired accountant
By contrast, I am right. HMG will use the generation argument - whether it is morally correct or not (I believe it is absolutely correct, you should wait a generation between these monumental votes) - and when that expires then there will be indyref2, and it will likely be a 2nd term Labour govt that grants it
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
He has heard of Margaret Thatcher
I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.
Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.
From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?
It's interesting to think through how an English parliament would work. Assuming it has similar powers to the Scottish government, it would draw up a spending budget based on an overall spending envelope set by the UK parliament, which would also set taxes. So say you had a Labour/SNP UK government and a Conservative English government (which I suppose is the interesting case here). You might have the UK government taxing more and giving the English more money for public services than the English government would want. What would happen then? On foreign policy, say the UK government was elected on a platform of rejoining the EU. What does the English government do if it opposes that? Just goes along with it? What if the English parliament wanted much tougher immigration rules than the UK parliament. Are English politicians going to sit back and accept the UK policy, or are they going to agitate to tske control and set their own rules? In Scotland the leading politicians are in Holyrood. Would Westminster become the second tier chamber in England too, while the leading English politicians focus on English politics at the new parliament in Hartlepool? Are we okay with UK foreign policy and fiscal policy and immigration policy being set by second tier politicians? (or third tier given the existing lot aren't top notch). I think that English public opinion might find this kind of setup quite difficult as the idea of a UK government and the English government being in opposition to each other is not something they've ever had to confront before. I'm not saying it can't work, simply that I can envisage loads of problems.
I actually tend to agree.
John Redwood had an interesting piece on the cost of Government the other day. He questioned the need for a huge Department of Health, managing a huge NHS England, managing huge NHS Trusts, managing actual hospitals. An English Parliament might be just another layer. But if it is that it at least beats a shit load of regional assemblies.
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
He has heard of Margaret Thatcher
I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.
Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.
From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?
Pretty clear slant in the reporting of it, but I am actually surprised the decision was taken. I assume an attempted legal challenge is already on its way.
The UK government has approved the first new coal mine in 30 years despite concern about its climate impacts among Conservative MPs and experts.
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
He has heard of Margaret Thatcher
I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.
Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.
From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?
If I worked in the private sector, I would be thinking "why the buggering fuck should taxpayers like me be shelling out for big pay increases for the public sector when I am not getting these pay increases myself?"
'If you’re shocked about the Michelle Mone story, wait till you find out that a firm owned by the finance manager of Michael Gove’s 2016 Tory leadership campaign won £170m in PPE deals.
After being referred to the PPE VIP lane by the office of… Michael Gove.'
Goodness me, whoever could have foreseen that telling Scots to STFU, that their votes don't matter, and that they can't control their own future democratically might have been counterproductive to the Union? 🤔
It isn't, as long as the UK government can refuse indyref2 as the Supreme Court confirmed there is a 100% chance it stays in the UK, see Spain and Catalonia.
As soon as indyref2 is allowed there is a 50% chance Scotland votes for independence even before this poll however.
So this Tory government should refuse indyref2 indefinitely. If Labour get in and grant one it is their problem to win it
Another independence referendum is inevitable given that the SNP keep winning Holyrood elections.
The ostrich-like mentality of the Tories to reject this reality only makes the Union losing the next referendum more likely.
No it isn't, Catalan nationalists keeping winning Catalan elections, Madrid has still refused them even 1 independence referendum.
It is also more likely there is a Yes vote under a Tory UK government than a Labour UK government, so it is in Unionists interests for only a Labour government to ever grant indyref2
You really do not have any idea how pathetic it is to claim it in Unionist interests to keep denying Scots indyref2 when such denial makes independence more likely
If the trend continues towards the SNP then those of us who value the union but also democracy need to grant the Scots their wish and win the argument
It is just reality. If there was an indyref2 tomorrow, it is more likely than not the Scots would narrowly vote Yes, especially with a Tory UK government as well as post Brexit.
If indyref2 is delayed until say 2026-29 under a Starmer led Labour government offering devomax it is probably more likely Scots would narrowly vote No.
If they still vote Yes then of course the Tories can switch overnight to become an English Nationalist Party taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. So the Tories have no interest in allowing an indyref2 now whether Unionists or English Nationalists, their interest is to leave it to Starmer and Gordon Brown to sort out.
After all Labour created Holyrood in the first place which enabled the SNP to gain their powerbase
I reckon the Labour Party are likely to get two terms in office, given the size of their impending victory
And I further reckon Labour will grant indyref2 in that 2nd term, with a Devomax option, as you say. By then - the early 2030s - the generation argument will no longer apply. By then, if Scots still want a vote, it must be granted, and Labour will do so
"the generation argument" ... no I can't even muster an "lol"
I've explained till I'm blue in the face why that's a complete nonsense but you guys still churn it out like robots. It reminds me of that scene in Spinal Tap where the gonzo lead guitarist is boasting about his superloud instrument.
"It goes up to eleven." "Yeah but that doesn't mean it's actually any louder than other guitars." "What?" "It depends on the scale. For example your eleven could equal somebody else's ten." (few seconds silence) "This one goes up to eleven."
What you believe doesn't really matter, does it? You're a retired accountant
By contrast, I am right. HMG will use the generation argument - whether it is morally correct or not (I believe it is absolutely correct, you should wait a generation between these monumental votes) - and when that expires then there will be indyref2, and it will likely be a 2nd term Labour govt that grants it
Indeed, unfortunately some are weak and would grant the SNP indyref2 every year until they get the result they want rather than respecting the fact an indyref should only ever be allowed once a generation at most
It would be far too dominant an entity. Where is there a successful example of devolution to such a majority demographic with a state?
I don't think you're wrong about England dominating. I had thought that the problem with the current setup is that it isn't fair on England to have no representation.
I thought a solution might be to have each nation have its own Parliament, with Westminster only being (at most) 200 MPs responsible for foreign affairs, defence and maybe broad overview of some other departments.
But as you say, the issue would come in the first GE when England voted for a Conservative government, but the UK voted Labour. You'd have a UK Labour PM trying to deal with a English Conservative FM (or whatever they'd call themselves). I don't know how that would work at all.
A possible solution I've seen proposed is to have London have its own devolved assembly too, not in England, so there are five (not four) which would weaken England though whether it would weaken England enough, and quite what people living in London would think about being told they could be Londoners or British but not English (at least not politically) I'm not sure (who would they support in the FIFA World Cup?).
The lopsided constitutional set up, where the smaller nations have their own parliaments but the dominant nation doesn't, is I think probably the norm where you have these kind of unequal federations. I belive for instance that Tobago has its own parliament but Trinidad doesn't, similarly with Nevis vs St Kitts. It certainly complicates things, it would be far easier if England wasn't 90% of the UK's population. I think in practical terms, if there were an English FM and a British PM, the first time the two disagreed fundamentally on a really important issue where the UK PM was on paper the decision maker the UK would break up.
No it wouldn't because the position would be no different to before in terms of the UK PM's powers for the non English home nations, just England would finally have its own First Minister for the same domestic policy the other home nations do
Supporters of an English Parliament never explain how it would improve the governance of England.
Well, for a start it would be governed by English representatives in the interests of England.
Few things are unequivocally in the interests of England (as opposed to just some in England) and of those that are, I struggle to think of many that Westminster can't happily pass.
If say the Tories had a majority in England but not in the UK and Welsh and Scottish Labour MPs voted on English laws, even if SNP MPs didn't, then that is a clear example of England being overruled at Westminster
But we're looking for how an English Parliament would lead to England being governed better not to it being governed by the Tories.
So SNP home rule fine for Scotland but not Tory home rule for England?
This isn't an apt comparison. It's not about parties. We need to look at the fundamentals. England dominates Westminster and Westminster is massively more powerful than Holyrood. Also Westminster has power over Scotland but Holyrood has no power over England. The imbalance still favours England - algebraic expansion says so - but not as much as it did before devolution. The impact of the so-called 'asymmetric devolution' was therefore not to disadvantage England in the Union but to mitigate its previous overwhelming advantage.
For now, the moment England votes Tory but gets a UK Labour government as in February 1974 or 1964 that will change
So you're comparing something that might theoretically happen to England but hasn't for 50 years to something that happens to Scotland pretty much all the time. Plus you don't want to give them a vote on doing something about it. That, H, truly is "asymmetric".
Scotland already has its own Parliament, tough, England doesn't. They voted 55% to stay in the UK in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum, those are the rules. If you stay in the UK then all non devolved matters are decided at Westminster.
Do you actually in practice want an English Parliament or is it more a passive-aggressive arguing strategy against Sindy and Sindy supporters?
You know, like those anti-feminists (eg that Philip Davies bloke) who whenever there's something going on specifically for women jump up and start moaning, "Why don't we have this for men then?"
It would be far too dominant an entity. Where is there a successful example of devolution to such a majority demographic with a state?
I don't think you're wrong about England dominating. I had thought that the problem with the current setup is that it isn't fair on England to have no representation.
I thought a solution might be to have each nation have its own Parliament, with Westminster only being (at most) 200 MPs responsible for foreign affairs, defence and maybe broad overview of some other departments.
But as you say, the issue would come in the first GE when England voted for a Conservative government, but the UK voted Labour. You'd have a UK Labour PM trying to deal with a English Conservative FM (or whatever they'd call themselves). I don't know how that would work at all.
A possible solution I've seen proposed is to have London have its own devolved assembly too, not in England, so there are five (not four) which would weaken England though whether it would weaken England enough, and quite what people living in London would think about being told they could be Londoners or British but not English (at least not politically) I'm not sure (who would they support in the FIFA World Cup?).
The lopsided constitutional set up, where the smaller nations have their own parliaments but the dominant nation doesn't, is I think probably the norm where you have these kind of unequal federations. I belive for instance that Tobago has its own parliament but Trinidad doesn't, similarly with Nevis vs St Kitts. It certainly complicates things, it would be far easier if England wasn't 90% of the UK's population. I think in practical terms, if there were an English FM and a British PM, the first time the two disagreed fundamentally on a really important issue where the UK PM was on paper the decision maker the UK would break up.
No it wouldn't because the position would be no different to before in terms of the UK PM's powers for the non English home nations, just England would finally have its own First Minister for the same domestic policy the other home nations do
Supporters of an English Parliament never explain how it would improve the governance of England.
Well, for a start it would be governed by English representatives in the interests of England.
Few things are unequivocally in the interests of England (as opposed to just some in England) and of those that are, I struggle to think of many that Westminster can't happily pass.
If say the Tories had a majority in England but not in the UK and Welsh and Scottish Labour MPs voted on English laws, even if SNP MPs didn't, then that is a clear example of England being overruled at Westminster
But we're looking for how an English Parliament would lead to England being governed better not to it being governed by the Tories.
So SNP home rule fine for Scotland but not Tory home rule for England?
This isn't an apt comparison. It's not about parties. We need to look at the fundamentals. England dominates Westminster and Westminster is massively more powerful than Holyrood. Also Westminster has power over Scotland but Holyrood has no power over England. The imbalance still favours England - algebraic expansion says so - but not as much as it did before devolution. The impact of the so-called 'asymmetric devolution' was therefore not to disadvantage England in the Union but to mitigate its previous overwhelming advantage.
For now, the moment England votes Tory but gets a UK Labour government as in February 1974 or 1964 that will change
So you're comparing something that might theoretically happen to England but hasn't for 50 years to something that happens to Scotland pretty much all the time. Plus you don't want to give them a vote on doing something about it. That, H, truly is "asymmetric".
Scotland already has its own Parliament, tough, England doesn't. They voted 55% to stay in the UK in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum, those are the rules. If you stay in the UK then all non devolved matters are decided at Westminster.
Do you actually in practice want an English Parliament or is it more a passive-aggressive arguing strategy against Sindy and Sindy supporters?
You know, like those anti-feminists (eg that Philip Davies bloke) who whenever there's something going on specifically for women jump up and start moaning, "Why don't we have this for men then?"
You ought to explain HYUFD is going (a) against Tory policy and (b) in support of SNP policy here.
'If you’re shocked about the Michelle Mone story, wait till you find out that a firm owned by the finance manager of Michael Gove’s 2016 Tory leadership campaign won £170m in PPE deals.
After being referred to the PPE VIP lane by the office of… Michael Gove.'
Goodness me, whoever could have foreseen that telling Scots to STFU, that their votes don't matter, and that they can't control their own future democratically might have been counterproductive to the Union? 🤔
It isn't, as long as the UK government can refuse indyref2 as the Supreme Court confirmed there is a 100% chance it stays in the UK, see Spain and Catalonia.
As soon as indyref2 is allowed there is a 50% chance Scotland votes for independence even before this poll however.
So this Tory government should refuse indyref2 indefinitely. If Labour get in and grant one it is their problem to win it
Another independence referendum is inevitable given that the SNP keep winning Holyrood elections.
The ostrich-like mentality of the Tories to reject this reality only makes the Union losing the next referendum more likely.
No it isn't, Catalan nationalists keeping winning Catalan elections, Madrid has still refused them even 1 independence referendum.
It is also more likely there is a Yes vote under a Tory UK government than a Labour UK government, so it is in Unionists interests for only a Labour government to ever grant indyref2
You really do not have any idea how pathetic it is to claim it in Unionist interests to keep denying Scots indyref2 when such denial makes independence more likely
If the trend continues towards the SNP then those of us who value the union but also democracy need to grant the Scots their wish and win the argument
It is just reality. If there was an indyref2 tomorrow, it is more likely than not the Scots would narrowly vote Yes, especially with a Tory UK government as well as post Brexit.
If indyref2 is delayed until say 2026-29 under a Starmer led Labour government offering devomax it is probably more likely Scots would narrowly vote No.
If they still vote Yes then of course the Tories can switch overnight to become an English Nationalist Party taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. So the Tories have no interest in allowing an indyref2 now whether Unionists or English Nationalists, their interest is to leave it to Starmer and Gordon Brown to sort out.
After all Labour created Holyrood in the first place which enabled the SNP to gain their powerbase
I reckon the Labour Party are likely to get two terms in office, given the size of their impending victory
And I further reckon Labour will grant indyref2 in that 2nd term, with a Devomax option, as you say. By then - the early 2030s - the generation argument will no longer apply. By then, if Scots still want a vote, it must be granted, and Labour will do so
The other reason for thinking that the Conservatives are facing a decade out is their likely response to defeat.
Given a choice between making peace with the swing electorate and doubling down on their current approach, which do you think they will choose?
Provided Labour runs the economy effectively like New Labour post 1997.
If Labour in government run the economy poorly the Tories could quickly recover even if with a hard right leadership
You are right that the hard right will take over the Tory leadership. Which will utterly destroy the party once and for all if Labour are sensible and spend a tiny bit of time of electoral reform.
'If you’re shocked about the Michelle Mone story, wait till you find out that a firm owned by the finance manager of Michael Gove’s 2016 Tory leadership campaign won £170m in PPE deals.
After being referred to the PPE VIP lane by the office of… Michael Gove.'
Goodness me, whoever could have foreseen that telling Scots to STFU, that their votes don't matter, and that they can't control their own future democratically might have been counterproductive to the Union? 🤔
It isn't, as long as the UK government can refuse indyref2 as the Supreme Court confirmed there is a 100% chance it stays in the UK, see Spain and Catalonia.
As soon as indyref2 is allowed there is a 50% chance Scotland votes for independence even before this poll however.
So this Tory government should refuse indyref2 indefinitely. If Labour get in and grant one it is their problem to win it
Another independence referendum is inevitable given that the SNP keep winning Holyrood elections.
The ostrich-like mentality of the Tories to reject this reality only makes the Union losing the next referendum more likely.
No it isn't, Catalan nationalists keeping winning Catalan elections, Madrid has still refused them even 1 independence referendum.
It is also more likely there is a Yes vote under a Tory UK government than a Labour UK government, so it is in Unionists interests for only a Labour government to ever grant indyref2
You really do not have any idea how pathetic it is to claim it in Unionist interests to keep denying Scots indyref2 when such denial makes independence more likely
If the trend continues towards the SNP then those of us who value the union but also democracy need to grant the Scots their wish and win the argument
It is just reality. If there was an indyref2 tomorrow, it is more likely than not the Scots would narrowly vote Yes, especially with a Tory UK government as well as post Brexit.
If indyref2 is delayed until say 2026-29 under a Starmer led Labour government offering devomax it is probably more likely Scots would narrowly vote No.
If they still vote Yes then of course the Tories can switch overnight to become an English Nationalist Party taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. So the Tories have no interest in allowing an indyref2 now whether Unionists or English Nationalists, their interest is to leave it to Starmer and Gordon Brown to sort out.
After all Labour created Holyrood in the first place which enabled the SNP to gain their powerbase
I reckon the Labour Party are likely to get two terms in office, given the size of their impending victory
And I further reckon Labour will grant indyref2 in that 2nd term, with a Devomax option, as you say. By then - the early 2030s - the generation argument will no longer apply. By then, if Scots still want a vote, it must be granted, and Labour will do so
"the generation argument" ... no I can't even muster an "lol"
I've explained till I'm blue in the face why that's a complete nonsense but you guys still churn it out like robots. It reminds me of that scene in Spinal Tap where the gonzo lead guitarist is boasting about his superloud instrument.
"It goes up to eleven." "Yeah but that doesn't mean it's actually any louder than other guitars." "What?" "It depends on the scale. For example your eleven could equal somebody else's ten." (few seconds silence) "This one goes up to eleven."
What you believe doesn't really matter, does it? You're a retired accountant
By contrast, I am right. HMG will use the generation argument - whether it is morally correct or not (I believe it is absolutely correct, you should wait a generation between these monumental votes) - and when that expires then there will be indyref2, and it will likely be a 2nd term Labour govt that grants it
Indeed, unfortunately some are weak and would grant the SNP indyref2 every year until they get the result they want rather than respecting the fact an indyref should only ever be allowed once a generation at most
It's interesting to think through how an English parliament would work. Assuming it has similar powers to the Scottish government, it would draw up a spending budget based on an overall spending envelope set by the UK parliament, which would also set taxes. So say you had a Labour/SNP UK government and a Conservative English government (which I suppose is the interesting case here). You might have the UK government taxing more and giving the English more money for public services than the English government would want. What would happen then? On foreign policy, say the UK government was elected on a platform of rejoining the EU. What does the English government do if it opposes that? Just goes along with it? What if the English parliament wanted much tougher immigration rules than the UK parliament. Are English politicians going to sit back and accept the UK policy, or are they going to agitate to tske control and set their own rules? In Scotland the leading politicians are in Holyrood. Would Westminster become the second tier chamber in England too, while the leading English politicians focus on English politics at the new parliament in Hartlepool? Are we okay with UK foreign policy and fiscal policy and immigration policy being set by second tier politicians? (or third tier given the existing lot aren't top notch). I think that English public opinion might find this kind of setup quite difficult as the idea of a UK government and the English government being in opposition to each other is not something they've ever had to confront before. I'm not saying it can't work, simply that I can envisage loads of problems.
I actually tend to agree.
John Redwood had an interesting piece on the cost of Government the other day. He questioned the need for a huge Department of Health, managing a huge NHS England, managing huge NHS Trusts, managing actual hospitals. An English Parliament might be just another layer. But if it is that it at least beats a shit load of regional assemblies.
Regional Assemblies (with some tax raising and spending powers) would transform the regions.
An English parliament would keep London being subsidised by the rest of the UK.
ChatGPT just helped me complete a seriously tricky project which might otherwise have taken days or weeks. Did it in hours. It is superb for brainstorming
Let us enjoy this sweet spot when we can collaborate with the machines, before they get so clever they take over everything and turn us into funny pets
About six months away, I reckon
I guess sooner or later they'll find a way to compress GPT into the head of a plausible humanoid robot and send him out to do a turn at the Hay festival. As I'm sure you realise the main purpose of an author these days is not actually to write books but to stand up before the punters and answer incisive questions like 'do you work before breakfast?' or 'do you use a pencil or a biro?' Meanwhile I live in hope that GPT's output will be so convincingly similar to the work of a human being that for the foreseeable future it will continue to provide well-paid employment for editors.
'If you’re shocked about the Michelle Mone story, wait till you find out that a firm owned by the finance manager of Michael Gove’s 2016 Tory leadership campaign won £170m in PPE deals.
After being referred to the PPE VIP lane by the office of… Michael Gove.'
Goodness me, whoever could have foreseen that telling Scots to STFU, that their votes don't matter, and that they can't control their own future democratically might have been counterproductive to the Union? 🤔
It isn't, as long as the UK government can refuse indyref2 as the Supreme Court confirmed there is a 100% chance it stays in the UK, see Spain and Catalonia.
As soon as indyref2 is allowed there is a 50% chance Scotland votes for independence even before this poll however.
So this Tory government should refuse indyref2 indefinitely. If Labour get in and grant one it is their problem to win it
Another independence referendum is inevitable given that the SNP keep winning Holyrood elections.
The ostrich-like mentality of the Tories to reject this reality only makes the Union losing the next referendum more likely.
No it isn't, Catalan nationalists keeping winning Catalan elections, Madrid has still refused them even 1 independence referendum.
It is also more likely there is a Yes vote under a Tory UK government than a Labour UK government, so it is in Unionists interests for only a Labour government to ever grant indyref2
You really do not have any idea how pathetic it is to claim it in Unionist interests to keep denying Scots indyref2 when such denial makes independence more likely
If the trend continues towards the SNP then those of us who value the union but also democracy need to grant the Scots their wish and win the argument
It is just reality. If there was an indyref2 tomorrow, it is more likely than not the Scots would narrowly vote Yes, especially with a Tory UK government as well as post Brexit.
If indyref2 is delayed until say 2026-29 under a Starmer led Labour government offering devomax it is probably more likely Scots would narrowly vote No.
If they still vote Yes then of course the Tories can switch overnight to become an English Nationalist Party taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. So the Tories have no interest in allowing an indyref2 now whether Unionists or English Nationalists, their interest is to leave it to Starmer and Gordon Brown to sort out.
After all Labour created Holyrood in the first place which enabled the SNP to gain their powerbase
I reckon the Labour Party are likely to get two terms in office, given the size of their impending victory
And I further reckon Labour will grant indyref2 in that 2nd term, with a Devomax option, as you say. By then - the early 2030s - the generation argument will no longer apply. By then, if Scots still want a vote, it must be granted, and Labour will do so
"the generation argument" ... no I can't even muster an "lol"
I've explained till I'm blue in the face why that's a complete nonsense but you guys still churn it out like robots. It reminds me of that scene in Spinal Tap where the gonzo lead guitarist is boasting about his superloud instrument.
"It goes up to eleven." "Yeah but that doesn't mean it's actually any louder than other guitars." "What?" "It depends on the scale. For example your eleven could equal somebody else's ten." (few seconds silence) "This one goes up to eleven."
What you believe doesn't really matter, does it? You're a retired accountant
By contrast, I am right. HMG will use the generation argument - whether it is morally correct or not (I believe it is absolutely correct, you should wait a generation between these monumental votes) - and when that expires then there will be indyref2, and it will likely be a 2nd term Labour govt that grants it
Indeed, unfortunately some are weak and would grant the SNP indyref2 every year until they get the result they want rather than respecting the fact an indyref should only ever be allowed once a generation at most
"fact"
Like where? Where is it in the legislation?
No other facts exist to compare with that.
Westminster and Westminster alone is sovereign as the SC confirmed, we have had enough of appeasing Scottish Nationalists, tough, you ain't getting any indyref2 as long as this Tory government is in power
Judicial review has joined death and taxes as one of the unavoidable circumstances of life. Cumbria, like England, if full of people who want to heat homes, travel by air and train and drive cars (all made with lots of steel) but are opposed to each and every way in which these can be brought about.
This one is for the steel. Aiui, UK steel making will basically go extinct along with a bunch of other subsidiary industries without the coal or imports of coal which the government is (was) being stupid about.
If the steel isn’t produced here, and to coal to produce it isn’t mined here, it will be produced and mined elsewhere in the world. The global net effect will be zero. The effect on UK jobs would be disastrous.
'If you’re shocked about the Michelle Mone story, wait till you find out that a firm owned by the finance manager of Michael Gove’s 2016 Tory leadership campaign won £170m in PPE deals.
After being referred to the PPE VIP lane by the office of… Michael Gove.'
Goodness me, whoever could have foreseen that telling Scots to STFU, that their votes don't matter, and that they can't control their own future democratically might have been counterproductive to the Union? 🤔
It isn't, as long as the UK government can refuse indyref2 as the Supreme Court confirmed there is a 100% chance it stays in the UK, see Spain and Catalonia.
As soon as indyref2 is allowed there is a 50% chance Scotland votes for independence even before this poll however.
So this Tory government should refuse indyref2 indefinitely. If Labour get in and grant one it is their problem to win it
Another independence referendum is inevitable given that the SNP keep winning Holyrood elections.
The ostrich-like mentality of the Tories to reject this reality only makes the Union losing the next referendum more likely.
No it isn't, Catalan nationalists keeping winning Catalan elections, Madrid has still refused them even 1 independence referendum.
It is also more likely there is a Yes vote under a Tory UK government than a Labour UK government, so it is in Unionists interests for only a Labour government to ever grant indyref2
You really do not have any idea how pathetic it is to claim it in Unionist interests to keep denying Scots indyref2 when such denial makes independence more likely
If the trend continues towards the SNP then those of us who value the union but also democracy need to grant the Scots their wish and win the argument
It is just reality. If there was an indyref2 tomorrow, it is more likely than not the Scots would narrowly vote Yes, especially with a Tory UK government as well as post Brexit.
If indyref2 is delayed until say 2026-29 under a Starmer led Labour government offering devomax it is probably more likely Scots would narrowly vote No.
If they still vote Yes then of course the Tories can switch overnight to become an English Nationalist Party taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. So the Tories have no interest in allowing an indyref2 now whether Unionists or English Nationalists, their interest is to leave it to Starmer and Gordon Brown to sort out.
After all Labour created Holyrood in the first place which enabled the SNP to gain their powerbase
I reckon the Labour Party are likely to get two terms in office, given the size of their impending victory
And I further reckon Labour will grant indyref2 in that 2nd term, with a Devomax option, as you say. By then - the early 2030s - the generation argument will no longer apply. By then, if Scots still want a vote, it must be granted, and Labour will do so
The other reason for thinking that the Conservatives are facing a decade out is their likely response to defeat.
Given a choice between making peace with the swing electorate and doubling down on their current approach, which do you think they will choose?
Provided Labour runs the economy effectively like New Labour post 1997.
If Labour in government run the economy poorly the Tories could quickly recover even if with a hard right leadership
You are right that the hard right will take over the Tory leadership. Which will utterly destroy the party once and for all if Labour are sensible and spend a tiny bit of time of electoral reform.
Not necessarily, in 2015 the Tories and UKIP would have had a clear majority combined under PR. PR also destroys any chance of a Labour majority government ever again too
'If you’re shocked about the Michelle Mone story, wait till you find out that a firm owned by the finance manager of Michael Gove’s 2016 Tory leadership campaign won £170m in PPE deals.
After being referred to the PPE VIP lane by the office of… Michael Gove.'
Goodness me, whoever could have foreseen that telling Scots to STFU, that their votes don't matter, and that they can't control their own future democratically might have been counterproductive to the Union? 🤔
It isn't, as long as the UK government can refuse indyref2 as the Supreme Court confirmed there is a 100% chance it stays in the UK, see Spain and Catalonia.
As soon as indyref2 is allowed there is a 50% chance Scotland votes for independence even before this poll however.
So this Tory government should refuse indyref2 indefinitely. If Labour get in and grant one it is their problem to win it
Another independence referendum is inevitable given that the SNP keep winning Holyrood elections.
The ostrich-like mentality of the Tories to reject this reality only makes the Union losing the next referendum more likely.
No it isn't, Catalan nationalists keeping winning Catalan elections, Madrid has still refused them even 1 independence referendum.
It is also more likely there is a Yes vote under a Tory UK government than a Labour UK government, so it is in Unionists interests for only a Labour government to ever grant indyref2
You really do not have any idea how pathetic it is to claim it in Unionist interests to keep denying Scots indyref2 when such denial makes independence more likely
If the trend continues towards the SNP then those of us who value the union but also democracy need to grant the Scots their wish and win the argument
It is just reality. If there was an indyref2 tomorrow, it is more likely than not the Scots would narrowly vote Yes, especially with a Tory UK government as well as post Brexit.
If indyref2 is delayed until say 2026-29 under a Starmer led Labour government offering devomax it is probably more likely Scots would narrowly vote No.
If they still vote Yes then of course the Tories can switch overnight to become an English Nationalist Party taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. So the Tories have no interest in allowing an indyref2 now whether Unionists or English Nationalists, their interest is to leave it to Starmer and Gordon Brown to sort out.
After all Labour created Holyrood in the first place which enabled the SNP to gain their powerbase
I reckon the Labour Party are likely to get two terms in office, given the size of their impending victory
And I further reckon Labour will grant indyref2 in that 2nd term, with a Devomax option, as you say. By then - the early 2030s - the generation argument will no longer apply. By then, if Scots still want a vote, it must be granted, and Labour will do so
"the generation argument" ... no I can't even muster an "lol"
I've explained till I'm blue in the face why that's a complete nonsense but you guys still churn it out like robots. It reminds me of that scene in Spinal Tap where the gonzo lead guitarist is boasting about his superloud instrument.
"It goes up to eleven." "Yeah but that doesn't mean it's actually any louder than other guitars." "What?" "It depends on the scale. For example your eleven could equal somebody else's ten." (few seconds silence) "This one goes up to eleven."
What you believe doesn't really matter, does it? You're a retired accountant
By contrast, I am right. HMG will use the generation argument - whether it is morally correct or not (I believe it is absolutely correct, you should wait a generation between these monumental votes) - and when that expires then there will be indyref2, and it will likely be a 2nd term Labour govt that grants it
Indeed, unfortunately some are weak and would grant the SNP indyref2 every year until they get the result they want rather than respecting the fact an indyref should only ever be allowed once a generation at most
"fact"
Like where? Where is it in the legislation?
No other facts exist to compare with that.
Westminster and Westminster alone is sovereign as the SC confirmed, we have had enough of appeasing Scottish Nationalists, tough, you ain't getting any indyref2 as long as this Tory government is in power
But there is no such thing as a 'generation' in the legislation.
The SC did not cnfirm that. It confirmed that the referendum could not be done independently by the SG in terms of the current legislation. Rather different.
Deltapoll has a 20-point Labour lead - some amusing nonsense in the sub samples.
******SUBSAMPLE ALERT*******(try not to laugh too much)
In London, Labour leads 56-21, among the 65+group, the Conservatives lead 50-30 while in Scotland the SNP have 49%, Labour 22%, the Conservatives 13% and the LDs 11%.
It would be far too dominant an entity. Where is there a successful example of devolution to such a majority demographic with a state?
I don't think you're wrong about England dominating. I had thought that the problem with the current setup is that it isn't fair on England to have no representation.
I thought a solution might be to have each nation have its own Parliament, with Westminster only being (at most) 200 MPs responsible for foreign affairs, defence and maybe broad overview of some other departments.
But as you say, the issue would come in the first GE when England voted for a Conservative government, but the UK voted Labour. You'd have a UK Labour PM trying to deal with a English Conservative FM (or whatever they'd call themselves). I don't know how that would work at all.
A possible solution I've seen proposed is to have London have its own devolved assembly too, not in England, so there are five (not four) which would weaken England though whether it would weaken England enough, and quite what people living in London would think about being told they could be Londoners or British but not English (at least not politically) I'm not sure (who would they support in the FIFA World Cup?).
The lopsided constitutional set up, where the smaller nations have their own parliaments but the dominant nation doesn't, is I think probably the norm where you have these kind of unequal federations. I belive for instance that Tobago has its own parliament but Trinidad doesn't, similarly with Nevis vs St Kitts. It certainly complicates things, it would be far easier if England wasn't 90% of the UK's population. I think in practical terms, if there were an English FM and a British PM, the first time the two disagreed fundamentally on a really important issue where the UK PM was on paper the decision maker the UK would break up.
No it wouldn't because the position would be no different to before in terms of the UK PM's powers for the non English home nations, just England would finally have its own First Minister for the same domestic policy the other home nations do
Supporters of an English Parliament never explain how it would improve the governance of England.
Well, for a start it would be governed by English representatives in the interests of England.
Few things are unequivocally in the interests of England (as opposed to just some in England) and of those that are, I struggle to think of many that Westminster can't happily pass.
If say the Tories had a majority in England but not in the UK and Welsh and Scottish Labour MPs voted on English laws, even if SNP MPs didn't, then that is a clear example of England being overruled at Westminster
But we're looking for how an English Parliament would lead to England being governed better not to it being governed by the Tories.
So SNP home rule fine for Scotland but not Tory home rule for England?
This isn't an apt comparison. It's not about parties. We need to look at the fundamentals. England dominates Westminster and Westminster is massively more powerful than Holyrood. Also Westminster has power over Scotland but Holyrood has no power over England. The imbalance still favours England - algebraic expansion says so - but not as much as it did before devolution. The impact of the so-called 'asymmetric devolution' was therefore not to disadvantage England in the Union but to mitigate its previous overwhelming advantage.
For now, the moment England votes Tory but gets a UK Labour government as in February 1974 or 1964 that will change
So you're comparing something that might theoretically happen to England but hasn't for 50 years to something that happens to Scotland pretty much all the time. Plus you don't want to give them a vote on doing something about it. That, H, truly is "asymmetric".
Scotland already has its own Parliament, tough, England doesn't. They voted 55% to stay in the UK in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum, those are the rules. If you stay in the UK then all non devolved matters are decided at Westminster.
Do you actually in practice want an English Parliament or is it more a passive-aggressive arguing strategy against Sindy and Sindy supporters?
You know, like those anti-feminists (eg that Philip Davies bloke) who whenever there's something going on specifically for women jump up and start moaning, "Why don't we have this for men then?"
I think I'd scrub the passive from that suggestion.
'If you’re shocked about the Michelle Mone story, wait till you find out that a firm owned by the finance manager of Michael Gove’s 2016 Tory leadership campaign won £170m in PPE deals.
After being referred to the PPE VIP lane by the office of… Michael Gove.'
Goodness me, whoever could have foreseen that telling Scots to STFU, that their votes don't matter, and that they can't control their own future democratically might have been counterproductive to the Union? 🤔
It isn't, as long as the UK government can refuse indyref2 as the Supreme Court confirmed there is a 100% chance it stays in the UK, see Spain and Catalonia.
As soon as indyref2 is allowed there is a 50% chance Scotland votes for independence even before this poll however.
So this Tory government should refuse indyref2 indefinitely. If Labour get in and grant one it is their problem to win it
Another independence referendum is inevitable given that the SNP keep winning Holyrood elections.
The ostrich-like mentality of the Tories to reject this reality only makes the Union losing the next referendum more likely.
No it isn't, Catalan nationalists keeping winning Catalan elections, Madrid has still refused them even 1 independence referendum.
It is also more likely there is a Yes vote under a Tory UK government than a Labour UK government, so it is in Unionists interests for only a Labour government to ever grant indyref2
You really do not have any idea how pathetic it is to claim it in Unionist interests to keep denying Scots indyref2 when such denial makes independence more likely
If the trend continues towards the SNP then those of us who value the union but also democracy need to grant the Scots their wish and win the argument
It is just reality. If there was an indyref2 tomorrow, it is more likely than not the Scots would narrowly vote Yes, especially with a Tory UK government as well as post Brexit.
If indyref2 is delayed until say 2026-29 under a Starmer led Labour government offering devomax it is probably more likely Scots would narrowly vote No.
If they still vote Yes then of course the Tories can switch overnight to become an English Nationalist Party taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. So the Tories have no interest in allowing an indyref2 now whether Unionists or English Nationalists, their interest is to leave it to Starmer and Gordon Brown to sort out.
After all Labour created Holyrood in the first place which enabled the SNP to gain their powerbase
I reckon the Labour Party are likely to get two terms in office, given the size of their impending victory
And I further reckon Labour will grant indyref2 in that 2nd term, with a Devomax option, as you say. By then - the early 2030s - the generation argument will no longer apply. By then, if Scots still want a vote, it must be granted, and Labour will do so
"the generation argument" ... no I can't even muster an "lol"
I've explained till I'm blue in the face why that's a complete nonsense but you guys still churn it out like robots. It reminds me of that scene in Spinal Tap where the gonzo lead guitarist is boasting about his superloud instrument.
"It goes up to eleven." "Yeah but that doesn't mean it's actually any louder than other guitars." "What?" "It depends on the scale. For example your eleven could equal somebody else's ten." (few seconds silence) "This one goes up to eleven."
What you believe doesn't really matter, does it? You're a retired accountant
By contrast, I am right. HMG will use the generation argument - whether it is morally correct or not (I believe it is absolutely correct, you should wait a generation between these monumental votes) - and when that expires then there will be indyref2, and it will likely be a 2nd term Labour govt that grants it
CHARTERED.
Plus I've done lurid worthless things like Bond Trading. I was a Big Swinging Prick. I bet I've done almost as many lurid worthless things as you. Just that I feel bad about it, cursed as I am with a moral compass.
The "generation argument" isn't an argument - it's a "talk to the hand" response to an argument.
I'm not a fan of an English Parliament on the assumption the Westminster Parliament disbars, for example, Scottish and Welsh MPs voting on English issues.
I'm not huge on the idea even if it were not the case - it would just be another level of bureaucracy.
As an example and using the old chestnut of Sunday Trading, if Surrey wanted shops to open and Kent wanted them closed, what would be wrong with that if both authorities were reflecting public opinion in their areas?
We have directly-elected local councils to govern us - give them the responsibility and authority to do that governing.
Where I do agree with @BartholomewRoberts is that there is a constitutional mess which needs sorting. Ending two-tier local Government might be a start but resolving London governance would also be crucial - we have a largely symbolic Mayor, a weak and ineffective GLA and the all-powerful Boroughs who enjoyed life without a GLC to intervene. Is there a requirement for a London-wide assembly - could it not be chosen from the Boroughs?
Does the Mayor have any useful function apart from being a tourist attraction?
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
He has heard of Margaret Thatcher
Rishi Sunak has more in common with Mark Thatcjer thanargaret Thatcjer.
He is lost in the wilderness without a map.
One of my favourite cartoons of the Thatcher era showed Dennis telling a tearful Margaret after Mark had gone missing in the desert, "The problem is darling once you're off the fairway it's all bunker'
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
He has heard of Margaret Thatcher
I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.
Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.
From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?
If I worked in the private sector, I would be thinking "why the buggering fuck should taxpayers like me be shelling out for big pay increases for the public sector when I am not getting these pay increases myself?"
The private sector does not 'pay for' the public sector. That's a superficial reductive presentation. The mixed economy is a symbiotic whole. Private supports public supports private supports public etc etc.
'If you’re shocked about the Michelle Mone story, wait till you find out that a firm owned by the finance manager of Michael Gove’s 2016 Tory leadership campaign won £170m in PPE deals.
After being referred to the PPE VIP lane by the office of… Michael Gove.'
Goodness me, whoever could have foreseen that telling Scots to STFU, that their votes don't matter, and that they can't control their own future democratically might have been counterproductive to the Union? 🤔
It isn't, as long as the UK government can refuse indyref2 as the Supreme Court confirmed there is a 100% chance it stays in the UK, see Spain and Catalonia.
As soon as indyref2 is allowed there is a 50% chance Scotland votes for independence even before this poll however.
So this Tory government should refuse indyref2 indefinitely. If Labour get in and grant one it is their problem to win it
Another independence referendum is inevitable given that the SNP keep winning Holyrood elections.
The ostrich-like mentality of the Tories to reject this reality only makes the Union losing the next referendum more likely.
No it isn't, Catalan nationalists keeping winning Catalan elections, Madrid has still refused them even 1 independence referendum.
It is also more likely there is a Yes vote under a Tory UK government than a Labour UK government, so it is in Unionists interests for only a Labour government to ever grant indyref2
You really do not have any idea how pathetic it is to claim it in Unionist interests to keep denying Scots indyref2 when such denial makes independence more likely
If the trend continues towards the SNP then those of us who value the union but also democracy need to grant the Scots their wish and win the argument
It is just reality. If there was an indyref2 tomorrow, it is more likely than not the Scots would narrowly vote Yes, especially with a Tory UK government as well as post Brexit.
If indyref2 is delayed until say 2026-29 under a Starmer led Labour government offering devomax it is probably more likely Scots would narrowly vote No.
If they still vote Yes then of course the Tories can switch overnight to become an English Nationalist Party taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. So the Tories have no interest in allowing an indyref2 now whether Unionists or English Nationalists, their interest is to leave it to Starmer and Gordon Brown to sort out.
After all Labour created Holyrood in the first place which enabled the SNP to gain their powerbase
I reckon the Labour Party are likely to get two terms in office, given the size of their impending victory
And I further reckon Labour will grant indyref2 in that 2nd term, with a Devomax option, as you say. By then - the early 2030s - the generation argument will no longer apply. By then, if Scots still want a vote, it must be granted, and Labour will do so
"the generation argument" ... no I can't even muster an "lol"
I've explained till I'm blue in the face why that's a complete nonsense but you guys still churn it out like robots. It reminds me of that scene in Spinal Tap where the gonzo lead guitarist is boasting about his superloud instrument.
"It goes up to eleven." "Yeah but that doesn't mean it's actually any louder than other guitars." "What?" "It depends on the scale. For example your eleven could equal somebody else's ten." (few seconds silence) "This one goes up to eleven."
What you believe doesn't really matter, does it? You're a retired accountant
By contrast, I am right. HMG will use the generation argument - whether it is morally correct or not (I believe it is absolutely correct, you should wait a generation between these monumental votes) - and when that expires then there will be indyref2, and it will likely be a 2nd term Labour govt that grants it
CHARTERED.
Plus I've done lurid worthless things like Bond Trading. I was a Big Swinging Prick. I bet I've done almost as many lurid worthless things as you. Just that I feel bad about it, cursed as I am with a moral compass.
The "generation argument" isn't an argument - it's a "talk to the hand" response to an argument.
“ I bet I've done almost as many lurid worthless things as you”
Peru’s president, Pedro Castillo, announced the dissolution of Congress and the installation of an emergency government to rule by decree, ahead of a scheduled vote to impeach him. Political leaders called the move a coup attempt."
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
He has heard of Margaret Thatcher
I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.
Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.
From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?
If I worked in the private sector, I would be thinking "why the buggering fuck should taxpayers like me be shelling out for big pay increases for the public sector when I am not getting these pay increases myself?"
The private sector does not 'pay for' the public sector. That's a superficial reductive presentation. The mixed economy is a symbiotic whole. Private supports public supports private supports public etc etc.
Yes, it's almost as if the NHS, the fire service, the trains, the teachers and so on provide no benefits whatsoever to the private sector.
'If you’re shocked about the Michelle Mone story, wait till you find out that a firm owned by the finance manager of Michael Gove’s 2016 Tory leadership campaign won £170m in PPE deals.
After being referred to the PPE VIP lane by the office of… Michael Gove.'
Goodness me, whoever could have foreseen that telling Scots to STFU, that their votes don't matter, and that they can't control their own future democratically might have been counterproductive to the Union? 🤔
It isn't, as long as the UK government can refuse indyref2 as the Supreme Court confirmed there is a 100% chance it stays in the UK, see Spain and Catalonia.
As soon as indyref2 is allowed there is a 50% chance Scotland votes for independence even before this poll however.
So this Tory government should refuse indyref2 indefinitely. If Labour get in and grant one it is their problem to win it
Another independence referendum is inevitable given that the SNP keep winning Holyrood elections.
The ostrich-like mentality of the Tories to reject this reality only makes the Union losing the next referendum more likely.
No it isn't, Catalan nationalists keeping winning Catalan elections, Madrid has still refused them even 1 independence referendum.
It is also more likely there is a Yes vote under a Tory UK government than a Labour UK government, so it is in Unionists interests for only a Labour government to ever grant indyref2
You really do not have any idea how pathetic it is to claim it in Unionist interests to keep denying Scots indyref2 when such denial makes independence more likely
If the trend continues towards the SNP then those of us who value the union but also democracy need to grant the Scots their wish and win the argument
It is just reality. If there was an indyref2 tomorrow, it is more likely than not the Scots would narrowly vote Yes, especially with a Tory UK government as well as post Brexit.
If indyref2 is delayed until say 2026-29 under a Starmer led Labour government offering devomax it is probably more likely Scots would narrowly vote No.
If they still vote Yes then of course the Tories can switch overnight to become an English Nationalist Party taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. So the Tories have no interest in allowing an indyref2 now whether Unionists or English Nationalists, their interest is to leave it to Starmer and Gordon Brown to sort out.
After all Labour created Holyrood in the first place which enabled the SNP to gain their powerbase
I reckon the Labour Party are likely to get two terms in office, given the size of their impending victory
And I further reckon Labour will grant indyref2 in that 2nd term, with a Devomax option, as you say. By then - the early 2030s - the generation argument will no longer apply. By then, if Scots still want a vote, it must be granted, and Labour will do so
"the generation argument" ... no I can't even muster an "lol"
I've explained till I'm blue in the face why that's a complete nonsense but you guys still churn it out like robots. It reminds me of that scene in Spinal Tap where the gonzo lead guitarist is boasting about his superloud instrument.
"It goes up to eleven." "Yeah but that doesn't mean it's actually any louder than other guitars." "What?" "It depends on the scale. For example your eleven could equal somebody else's ten." (few seconds silence) "This one goes up to eleven."
What you believe doesn't really matter, does it? You're a retired accountant
By contrast, I am right. HMG will use the generation argument - whether it is morally correct or not (I believe it is absolutely correct, you should wait a generation between these monumental votes) - and when that expires then there will be indyref2, and it will likely be a 2nd term Labour govt that grants it
Indeed, unfortunately some are weak and would grant the SNP indyref2 every year until they get the result they want rather than respecting the fact an indyref should only ever be allowed once a generation at most
"fact"
Like where? Where is it in the legislation?
No other facts exist to compare with that.
Westminster and Westminster alone is sovereign as the SC confirmed, we have had enough of appeasing Scottish Nationalists, tough, you ain't getting any indyref2 as long as this Tory government is in power
But there is no such thing as a 'generation' in the legislation.
The SC did not cnfirm that. It confirmed that the referendum could not be done independently by the SG in terms of the current legislation. Rather different.
In any case despite the bleating of the perpetual referendum lads, we’ve had one-ONE-referendum on Scottish Indy in c.10 generations. I reckon we’re due a bit of a catch up.
Sunak: “Like everyone else I was absolutely shocked to read about the allegations. It’s absolutely right that she is no longer attending the House of Lords and therefore no longer has the Conservative Whip.” https://mobile.twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1600462541213368320
That doesn’t make sense. If it is right that her company failed to honour its commitments to supply the specified items, appropriate financial redress must be sought. If that's not the case, he has no business slagging her off on the floor of the Commons. What is he actually doing to follow through?
She publicly denied it was her company, or that she benefitted from it. That does not appear to be true.
Then Sunak needs to take action, rather than just expressing moral outrage.
Anyone on here think this gov isn’t gonna make another two years?
It might be best for the country and the Conservatives to bail out now. But "something might turn up" is a powerful bit of copium.
So stand by for two years of Rishi Zombie. Election almost exactly two years from today. As late as possible without campaigning over Christmas - not even the Conservatives would be that careless, surely.
So we need an English parliament to allow Sunday Trading in England?
Pretty thin gruel.
Sunday trading should be a decision made at county and metro level, anyway.
We need an English Parliament (or simply to ban Scottish MPs from voting on devolved matters) to ensure that English laws are determined in England.
Democracy trumps any gruel. Sunday Trading and Top Up Fees are simply examples of where it has already mattered, despite the Government typically* having a healthy majority post-devolution.
*2010-2015 was a very healthy Government majority as the Government included both parties of the Coalition. 2017-19 obviously was not.
An English Parliament solves a problem relating to Sunday Trading from twenty years ago, but brings up whole new, union-destabilising problems.
No wonder Barty Bobbins is in favour. He waves the word “democracy” around as an attempted veto, but has no idea what it means in practice.
The unstable part of the constitution is the current devolution settlement, which provides quite a bit of spending power, but not tax-raising power, to the Scottish government. It’s a machine for breaking apart the Union.
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
Can I remind you of Margaret who crushed the Unions and their Soviet loving Masters. These chaps need another dose of comeuppance. The nation is relying on Rishi to have the vim so to do
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
He has heard of Margaret Thatcher
I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.
Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.
From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?
If I worked in the private sector, I would be thinking "why the buggering fuck should taxpayers like me be shelling out for big pay increases for the public sector when I am not getting these pay increases myself?"
The private sector does not 'pay for' the public sector. That's a superficial reductive presentation. The mixed economy is a symbiotic whole. Private supports public supports private supports public etc etc.
Perhaps. Though if the private sector doesn't pay for the state, who does? But that misses the point: if you work for the private sector why would you be cheering on public sector strikers to achieve pay rises that you cannot, because you have to operate in the economic real world?
Peru’s president, Pedro Castillo, announced the dissolution of Congress and the installation of an emergency government to rule by decree, ahead of a scheduled vote to impeach him. Political leaders called the move a coup attempt."
So we need an English parliament to allow Sunday Trading in England?
Pretty thin gruel.
Sunday trading should be a decision made at county and metro level, anyway.
We need an English Parliament (or simply to ban Scottish MPs from voting on devolved matters) to ensure that English laws are determined in England.
Democracy trumps any gruel. Sunday Trading and Top Up Fees are simply examples of where it has already mattered, despite the Government typically* having a healthy majority post-devolution.
*2010-2015 was a very healthy Government majority as the Government included both parties of the Coalition. 2017-19 obviously was not.
An English Parliament solves a problem relating to Sunday Trading from twenty years ago, but brings up whole new, union-destabilising problems.
No wonder Barty Bobbins is in favour. He waves the word “democracy” around as an attempted veto, but has no idea what it means in practice.
The unstable part of the constitution is the current devolution settlement, which provides quite a bit of spending power, but not tax-raising power, to the Scottish government. It’s a machine for breaking apart the Union.
Seems like the Welsh might agree.
Though devomax would give Holyrood more tax raising powers as Brown wants if Labour win next time.
All England wants is parity with the other home nations within the UK
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
Can I remind you of Margaret who crushed the Unions and their Soviet loving Masters. These chaps need another dose of comeuppance. The nation is relying on Rishi to have the vim so to do
You think it was all about vim, and not preparation or choosing the right time or battleground?
My god, you really are channeling the disgraced former Prime Minister.
So we need an English parliament to allow Sunday Trading in England?
Pretty thin gruel.
Sunday trading should be a decision made at county and metro level, anyway.
We need an English Parliament (or simply to ban Scottish MPs from voting on devolved matters) to ensure that English laws are determined in England.
Democracy trumps any gruel. Sunday Trading and Top Up Fees are simply examples of where it has already mattered, despite the Government typically* having a healthy majority post-devolution.
*2010-2015 was a very healthy Government majority as the Government included both parties of the Coalition. 2017-19 obviously was not.
An English Parliament solves a problem relating to Sunday Trading from twenty years ago, but brings up whole new, union-destabilising problems.
No wonder Barty Bobbins is in favour. He waves the word “democracy” around as an attempted veto, but has no idea what it means in practice.
The unstable part of the constitution is the current devolution settlement, which provides quite a bit of spending power, but not tax-raising power, to the Scottish government. It’s a machine for breaking apart the Union.
Seems like the Welsh might agree.
Though devomax would give Holyrood more tax raising powers as Brown wants if Labour win next time.
All England wants is parity with the other home nations within the UK
According to the polling you cited, England does not want it.
Deltapoll has a 20-point Labour lead - some amusing nonsense in the sub samples.
******SUBSAMPLE ALERT*******(try not to laugh too much)
In London, Labour leads 56-21, among the 65+group, the Conservatives lead 50-30 while in Scotland the SNP have 49%, Labour 22%, the Conservatives 13% and the LDs 11%.
Yes, with all the talk of the government itching to take on the unions, earlier, I was thinking what a shame it is that there is no trade union for well-off pensioners.
Then, of course, I realised that there already is.
'If you’re shocked about the Michelle Mone story, wait till you find out that a firm owned by the finance manager of Michael Gove’s 2016 Tory leadership campaign won £170m in PPE deals.
After being referred to the PPE VIP lane by the office of… Michael Gove.'
Goodness me, whoever could have foreseen that telling Scots to STFU, that their votes don't matter, and that they can't control their own future democratically might have been counterproductive to the Union? 🤔
It isn't, as long as the UK government can refuse indyref2 as the Supreme Court confirmed there is a 100% chance it stays in the UK, see Spain and Catalonia.
As soon as indyref2 is allowed there is a 50% chance Scotland votes for independence even before this poll however.
So this Tory government should refuse indyref2 indefinitely. If Labour get in and grant one it is their problem to win it
Another independence referendum is inevitable given that the SNP keep winning Holyrood elections.
The ostrich-like mentality of the Tories to reject this reality only makes the Union losing the next referendum more likely.
No it isn't, Catalan nationalists keeping winning Catalan elections, Madrid has still refused them even 1 independence referendum.
It is also more likely there is a Yes vote under a Tory UK government than a Labour UK government, so it is in Unionists interests for only a Labour government to ever grant indyref2
You really do not have any idea how pathetic it is to claim it in Unionist interests to keep denying Scots indyref2 when such denial makes independence more likely
If the trend continues towards the SNP then those of us who value the union but also democracy need to grant the Scots their wish and win the argument
It is just reality. If there was an indyref2 tomorrow, it is more likely than not the Scots would narrowly vote Yes, especially with a Tory UK government as well as post Brexit.
If indyref2 is delayed until say 2026-29 under a Starmer led Labour government offering devomax it is probably more likely Scots would narrowly vote No.
If they still vote Yes then of course the Tories can switch overnight to become an English Nationalist Party taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. So the Tories have no interest in allowing an indyref2 now whether Unionists or English Nationalists, their interest is to leave it to Starmer and Gordon Brown to sort out.
After all Labour created Holyrood in the first place which enabled the SNP to gain their powerbase
I reckon the Labour Party are likely to get two terms in office, given the size of their impending victory
And I further reckon Labour will grant indyref2 in that 2nd term, with a Devomax option, as you say. By then - the early 2030s - the generation argument will no longer apply. By then, if Scots still want a vote, it must be granted, and Labour will do so
"the generation argument" ... no I can't even muster an "lol"
I've explained till I'm blue in the face why that's a complete nonsense but you guys still churn it out like robots. It reminds me of that scene in Spinal Tap where the gonzo lead guitarist is boasting about his superloud instrument.
"It goes up to eleven." "Yeah but that doesn't mean it's actually any louder than other guitars." "What?" "It depends on the scale. For example your eleven could equal somebody else's ten." (few seconds silence) "This one goes up to eleven."
What you believe doesn't really matter, does it? You're a retired accountant
By contrast, I am right. HMG will use the generation argument - whether it is morally correct or not (I believe it is absolutely correct, you should wait a generation between these monumental votes) - and when that expires then there will be indyref2, and it will likely be a 2nd term Labour govt that grants it
Indeed, unfortunately some are weak and would grant the SNP indyref2 every year until they get the result they want rather than respecting the fact an indyref should only ever be allowed once a generation at most
"fact"
Like where? Where is it in the legislation?
No other facts exist to compare with that.
Westminster and Westminster alone is sovereign as the SC confirmed, we have had enough of appeasing Scottish Nationalists, tough, you ain't getting any indyref2 as long as this Tory government is in power
This reads like the scene in Dr. Strangelove when he loses control of his gloved hand which involuntarily makes the Nazi salute as he rants.
Judicial review has joined death and taxes as one of the unavoidable circumstances of life. Cumbria, like England, if full of people who want to heat homes, travel by air and train and drive cars (all made with lots of steel) but are opposed to each and every way in which these can be brought about.
This one is for the steel. Aiui, UK steel making will basically go extinct along with a bunch of other subsidiary industries without the coal or imports of coal which the government is (was) being stupid about.
If the steel isn’t produced here, and to coal to produce it isn’t mined here, it will be produced and mined elsewhere in the world. The global net effect will be zero. The effect on UK jobs would be disastrous.
British coal mines did not shut down because of climate change concerns, they shut down because it's massively cheaper to get coal from big open pit mines in Colombia or Australia and to ship it to the UK.
There's no future for coal plants that produce at massively about market rates.
Anyone on here think this gov isn’t gonna make another two years?
It might be best for the country and the Conservatives to bail out now. But "something might turn up" is a powerful bit of copium.
So stand by for two years of Rishi Zombie. Election almost exactly two years from today. As late as possible without campaigning over Christmas - not even the Conservatives would be that careless, surely.
Zombies have far more charisma than Rishi, and a sense of menace too.
In lighter news, I read in the Speccie that Cruyff refused to take penalties, arguing that they were an inferior art form. Which is admirably principled, if bloody awkward of him. It was Paul Ince's refusal to take penalties (probably because he didn't fancy it, rather than because he objected to them conceptually) which led to the admirably-game Gareth Southgate volunteering.
"Money available to spend on food, housing, services, energy costs, private pensions, insurance, vacations, mobility, and consumer purchases."
So I suppose it is about post-tax income.
Unfortunately, further details on methodology are lacking. Has anyone heard of these people before? Its claim that the average welshman has more to spend than the average provincial frenchman seems a bit dubious. Details, such as they are:
Judicial review has joined death and taxes as one of the unavoidable circumstances of life. Cumbria, like England, if full of people who want to heat homes, travel by air and train and drive cars (all made with lots of steel) but are opposed to each and every way in which these can be brought about.
This one is for the steel. Aiui, UK steel making will basically go extinct along with a bunch of other subsidiary industries without the coal or imports of coal which the government is (was) being stupid about.
If the steel isn’t produced here, and to coal to produce it isn’t mined here, it will be produced and mined elsewhere in the world. The global net effect will be zero. The effect on UK jobs would be disastrous.
British coal mines did not shut down because of climate change concerns, they shut down because it's massively cheaper to get coal from big open pit mines in Colombia or Australia and to ship it to the UK.
There's no future for coal plants that produce at massively about market rates.
If 85% of the mine's coal is set to be exported, I don't see how you work out that the coal produced will cost 'massively above market rates'.
Deltapoll has a 20-point Labour lead - some amusing nonsense in the sub samples.
******SUBSAMPLE ALERT*******(try not to laugh too much)
In London, Labour leads 56-21, among the 65+group, the Conservatives lead 50-30 while in Scotland the SNP have 49%, Labour 22%, the Conservatives 13% and the LDs 11%.
Yes, with all the talk of the government itching to take on the unions, earlier, I was thinking what a shame it is that there is no trade union for well-off pensioners.
Then, of course, I realised that there already is.
"Money available to spend on food, housing, services, energy costs, private pensions, insurance, vacations, mobility, and consumer purchases."
So I suppose it is about post-tax income.
Unfortunately, further details on methodology are lacking. Has anyone heard of these people before? Its claim that the average welshman has more to spend than the average provincial frenchman seems a bit dubious. Details, such as they are:
Judicial review has joined death and taxes as one of the unavoidable circumstances of life. Cumbria, like England, if full of people who want to heat homes, travel by air and train and drive cars (all made with lots of steel) but are opposed to each and every way in which these can be brought about.
This one is for the steel. Aiui, UK steel making will basically go extinct along with a bunch of other subsidiary industries without the coal or imports of coal which the government is (was) being stupid about.
If the steel isn’t produced here, and to coal to produce it isn’t mined here, it will be produced and mined elsewhere in the world. The global net effect will be zero. The effect on UK jobs would be disastrous.
British coal mines did not shut down because of climate change concerns, they shut down because it's massively cheaper to get coal from big open pit mines in Colombia or Australia and to ship it to the UK.
There's no future for coal plants that produce at massively about market rates.
Then how are the mine's operators proposing to make a profit?
We need at least one domestic coal mine to keep our heritage railways going.
We could create a heritage village called "Smogtown" where everyone burns Nutty Slack in their grates and watches the Coronation (the last one not the next one) and reminisces about how wonderful life was in the early 1950s.
We need at least one domestic coal mine to keep our heritage railways going.
We could create a heritage village called "Smogtown" where everyone burns Nutty Slack in their grates and watches the Coronation (the last one not the next one) and reminisces about how wonderful life was in the early 1950s.
I love a coal fire - there's something special about it compared with a log fire.
So we need an English parliament to allow Sunday Trading in England?
Pretty thin gruel.
Sunday trading should be a decision made at county and metro level, anyway.
We need an English Parliament (or simply to ban Scottish MPs from voting on devolved matters) to ensure that English laws are determined in England.
Democracy trumps any gruel. Sunday Trading and Top Up Fees are simply examples of where it has already mattered, despite the Government typically* having a healthy majority post-devolution.
*2010-2015 was a very healthy Government majority as the Government included both parties of the Coalition. 2017-19 obviously was not.
An English Parliament solves a problem relating to Sunday Trading from twenty years ago, but brings up whole new, union-destabilising problems.
No wonder Barty Bobbins is in favour. He waves the word “democracy” around as an attempted veto, but has no idea what it means in practice.
The unstable part of the constitution is the current devolution settlement, which provides quite a bit of spending power, but not tax-raising power, to the Scottish government. It’s a machine for breaking apart the Union.
Seems like the Welsh might agree.
Though devomax would give Holyrood more tax raising powers as Brown wants if Labour win next time.
All England wants is parity with the other home nations within the UK
According to the polling you cited, England does not want it.
Devolution to England doesn't really make sense, because the on-the-ground situation would be virtually indistinguishable from what we have.
Devolution to smaller parts of England does make sense, because people have attachments and can see the effect of local decisions.
I suspect most counties are a bit too small to run much stuff efficiently, but I think that groups of counties could fairly quickly assemble themselves into something like the old ITV regions map.
Trouble is that there is a triangle, roughly Peterborough/Banbury/Reading that's a bit of a black hole, identity-wise. And important opinion makers live there.
We need at least one domestic coal mine to keep our heritage railways going.
I went to buy some coal the other day. Hadn't bought any for a couple of years. My previous £7.50 bags of Peruvian coal (they can't sell bags of coal these days, they have to slit it open at the top, and it is years since they sold English coal) were now upwards of £35. It is all now going to Eastern Europe. Hence the coal merchant doesn't sell it. He sells "smokeless" coal at £18 a bag.
So we need an English parliament to allow Sunday Trading in England?
Pretty thin gruel.
Sunday trading should be a decision made at county and metro level, anyway.
We need an English Parliament (or simply to ban Scottish MPs from voting on devolved matters) to ensure that English laws are determined in England.
Democracy trumps any gruel. Sunday Trading and Top Up Fees are simply examples of where it has already mattered, despite the Government typically* having a healthy majority post-devolution.
*2010-2015 was a very healthy Government majority as the Government included both parties of the Coalition. 2017-19 obviously was not.
An English Parliament solves a problem relating to Sunday Trading from twenty years ago, but brings up whole new, union-destabilising problems.
No wonder Barty Bobbins is in favour. He waves the word “democracy” around as an attempted veto, but has no idea what it means in practice.
The unstable part of the constitution is the current devolution settlement, which provides quite a bit of spending power, but not tax-raising power, to the Scottish government. It’s a machine for breaking apart the Union.
Seems like the Welsh might agree.
Though devomax would give Holyrood more tax raising powers as Brown wants if Labour win next time.
All England wants is parity with the other home nations within the UK
According to the polling you cited, England does not want it.
Devolution to England doesn't really make sense, because the on-the-ground situation would be virtually indistinguishable from what we have.
Devolution to smaller parts of England does make sense, because people have attachments and can see the effect of local decisions.
I suspect most counties are a bit too small to run much stuff efficiently, but I think that groups of counties could fairly quickly assemble themselves into something like the old ITV regions map.
Trouble is that there is a triangle, roughly Peterborough/Banbury/Reading that's a bit of a black hole, identity-wise. And important opinion makers live there.
As noted upthread, counties are as big if not bigger than Swiss cantons, who manage just fine.
Give the Vale of White Horse back to Berkshire and let them and the Oxonians manage themselves. Etc.
We need at least one domestic coal mine to keep our heritage railways going.
We could create a heritage village called "Smogtown" where everyone burns Nutty Slack in their grates and watches the Coronation (the last one not the next one) and reminisces about how wonderful life was in the early 1950s.
I love a coal fire - there's something special about it compared with a log fire.
I love the smell - I haven't smelled it for years - of a town or village in December warmed by coal fires. I remember it in, possibly, Shildon, County Durham, and Hawes, North Yorkshire, in the late 90s. Weirdly evocative. Though I daresay if you loved there you'd be glad of fresh air when you came across it. Part of me wants to retire to Hawes just because I think it'd be a great spot for a funeral. It has that slightly thoughtful, reflective quality.
We need at least one domestic coal mine to keep our heritage railways going.
We could create a heritage village called "Smogtown" where everyone burns Nutty Slack in their grates and watches the Coronation (the last one not the next one) and reminisces about how wonderful life was in the early 1950s.
"Money available to spend on food, housing, services, energy costs, private pensions, insurance, vacations, mobility, and consumer purchases."
So I suppose it is about post-tax income.
Unfortunately, further details on methodology are lacking. Has anyone heard of these people before? Its claim that the average welshman has more to spend than the average provincial frenchman seems a bit dubious. Details, such as they are:
Looks doubtful. If true it is extraordinary. England richer than almost the whole of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland? No.
BTW I live in one of the poorer parts of England on this reckoning. We are mostly as happy as the day is long and people's children can buy a house usually in their twenties.
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
Can I remind you of Margaret who crushed the Unions and their Soviet loving Masters. These chaps need another dose of comeuppance. The nation is relying on Rishi to have the vim so to do
You think it was all about vim, and not preparation or choosing the right time or battleground?
My god, you really are channeling the disgraced former Prime Minister.
We need at least one domestic coal mine to keep our heritage railways going.
We could create a heritage village called "Smogtown" where everyone burns Nutty Slack in their grates and watches the Coronation (the last one not the next one) and reminisces about how wonderful life was in the early 1950s.
I don't give a fuck about climate change if it affects my steam railways.
We need at least one domestic coal mine to keep our heritage railways going.
I went to buy some coal the other day. Hadn't bought any for a couple of years. My previous £7.50 bags of Peruvian coal (they can't sell bags of coal these days, they have to slit it open at the top, and it is years since they sold English coal) were now upwards of £35. It is all now going to Eastern Europe. Hence the coal merchant doesn't sell it. He sells "smokeless" coal at £18 a bag.
That is some inflation number.
Yes, it's dogma - something Gove can see straight through.
We need at least one domestic coal mine to keep our heritage railways going.
I went to buy some coal the other day. Hadn't bought any for a couple of years. My previous £7.50 bags of Peruvian coal (they can't sell bags of coal these days, they have to slit it open at the top, and it is years since they sold English coal) were now upwards of £35. It is all now going to Eastern Europe. Hence the coal merchant doesn't sell it. He sells "smokeless" coal at £18 a bag.
That is some inflation number.
Yes, it's dogma - something Gove can see straight through.
Steady on, the man has made a single good decision.
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
He has heard of Margaret Thatcher
I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.
Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.
From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?
If I worked in the private sector, I would be thinking "why the buggering fuck should taxpayers like me be shelling out for big pay increases for the public sector when I am not getting these pay increases myself?"
The private sector does not 'pay for' the public sector. That's a superficial reductive presentation. The mixed economy is a symbiotic whole. Private supports public supports private supports public etc etc.
Perhaps. Though if the private sector doesn't pay for the state, who does? But that misses the point: if you work for the private sector why would you be cheering on public sector strikers to achieve pay rises that you cannot, because you have to operate in the economic real world?
It's all the economic real world and we all pay for the state. Collective 'all' not every last man jack. Some are net contributors and some are net extractors, which one you are depends on the value of the work you do (inc unpaid work) compared to how much you're remunerated for it. This is true regardless of which sector you're in. Eg an NHS doctor might be a net contributor and a Foxtons estate agent a net extractor. I'm a net extractor and have been for years, but there were times when I was a net contributor. Eg when I picked strawberries in Norfolk in the summer hols.
"Money available to spend on food, housing, services, energy costs, private pensions, insurance, vacations, mobility, and consumer purchases."
So I suppose it is about post-tax income.
Unfortunately, further details on methodology are lacking. Has anyone heard of these people before? Its claim that the average welshman has more to spend than the average provincial frenchman seems a bit dubious. Details, such as they are:
Looks doubtful. If true it is extraordinary. England richer than almost the whole of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland? No.
BTW I live in one of the poorer parts of England on this reckoning. We are mostly as happy as the day is long and people's children can buy a house usually in their twenties.
It is almost impossible to see how the north of Wales could come out as wealthier than the south of Pembrokeshire on any metric. Even if they include second homeowners with vast incomes.
'If you’re shocked about the Michelle Mone story, wait till you find out that a firm owned by the finance manager of Michael Gove’s 2016 Tory leadership campaign won £170m in PPE deals.
After being referred to the PPE VIP lane by the office of… Michael Gove.'
Goodness me, whoever could have foreseen that telling Scots to STFU, that their votes don't matter, and that they can't control their own future democratically might have been counterproductive to the Union? 🤔
It isn't, as long as the UK government can refuse indyref2 as the Supreme Court confirmed there is a 100% chance it stays in the UK, see Spain and Catalonia.
As soon as indyref2 is allowed there is a 50% chance Scotland votes for independence even before this poll however.
So this Tory government should refuse indyref2 indefinitely. If Labour get in and grant one it is their problem to win it
Another independence referendum is inevitable given that the SNP keep winning Holyrood elections.
The ostrich-like mentality of the Tories to reject this reality only makes the Union losing the next referendum more likely.
No it isn't, Catalan nationalists keeping winning Catalan elections, Madrid has still refused them even 1 independence referendum.
It is also more likely there is a Yes vote under a Tory UK government than a Labour UK government, so it is in Unionists interests for only a Labour government to ever grant indyref2
You really do not have any idea how pathetic it is to claim it in Unionist interests to keep denying Scots indyref2 when such denial makes independence more likely
If the trend continues towards the SNP then those of us who value the union but also democracy need to grant the Scots their wish and win the argument
It is just reality. If there was an indyref2 tomorrow, it is more likely than not the Scots would narrowly vote Yes, especially with a Tory UK government as well as post Brexit.
If indyref2 is delayed until say 2026-29 under a Starmer led Labour government offering devomax it is probably more likely Scots would narrowly vote No.
If they still vote Yes then of course the Tories can switch overnight to become an English Nationalist Party taking as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks. So the Tories have no interest in allowing an indyref2 now whether Unionists or English Nationalists, their interest is to leave it to Starmer and Gordon Brown to sort out.
After all Labour created Holyrood in the first place which enabled the SNP to gain their powerbase
I reckon the Labour Party are likely to get two terms in office, given the size of their impending victory
And I further reckon Labour will grant indyref2 in that 2nd term, with a Devomax option, as you say. By then - the early 2030s - the generation argument will no longer apply. By then, if Scots still want a vote, it must be granted, and Labour will do so
"the generation argument" ... no I can't even muster an "lol"
I've explained till I'm blue in the face why that's a complete nonsense but you guys still churn it out like robots. It reminds me of that scene in Spinal Tap where the gonzo lead guitarist is boasting about his superloud instrument.
"It goes up to eleven." "Yeah but that doesn't mean it's actually any louder than other guitars." "What?" "It depends on the scale. For example your eleven could equal somebody else's ten." (few seconds silence) "This one goes up to eleven."
What you believe doesn't really matter, does it? You're a retired accountant
By contrast, I am right. HMG will use the generation argument - whether it is morally correct or not (I believe it is absolutely correct, you should wait a generation between these monumental votes) - and when that expires then there will be indyref2, and it will likely be a 2nd term Labour govt that grants it
Indeed, unfortunately some are weak and would grant the SNP indyref2 every year until they get the result they want rather than respecting the fact an indyref should only ever be allowed once a generation at most
"fact"
Like where? Where is it in the legislation?
No other facts exist to compare with that.
Westminster and Westminster alone is sovereign as the SC confirmed, we have had enough of appeasing Scottish Nationalists, tough, you ain't getting any indyref2 as long as this Tory government is in power
But there is no such thing as a 'generation' in the legislation.
The SC did not cnfirm that. It confirmed that the referendum could not be done independently by the SG in terms of the current legislation. Rather different.
In any case despite the bleating of the perpetual referendum lads, we’ve had one-ONE-referendum on Scottish Indy in c.10 generations. I reckon we’re due a bit of a catch up.
At the 2014 referendum, generations was talked about by some, and clearly 8 years is not a generation. BUT 2016 changed Scotlands relationship with Europe. That’s a fairly big material change, and probably does justify another referendum. However it is also sensible to assert that you should not keep having referenda without significant change in circumstances, on the off chance of success that leads to an irrevocable hysteresis.
We’ve seen that with Brexit, and the outcome has not been 100% positive.
So we need an English parliament to allow Sunday Trading in England?
Pretty thin gruel.
Sunday trading should be a decision made at county and metro level, anyway.
We need an English Parliament (or simply to ban Scottish MPs from voting on devolved matters) to ensure that English laws are determined in England.
Democracy trumps any gruel. Sunday Trading and Top Up Fees are simply examples of where it has already mattered, despite the Government typically* having a healthy majority post-devolution.
*2010-2015 was a very healthy Government majority as the Government included both parties of the Coalition. 2017-19 obviously was not.
An English Parliament solves a problem relating to Sunday Trading from twenty years ago, but brings up whole new, union-destabilising problems.
No wonder Barty Bobbins is in favour. He waves the word “democracy” around as an attempted veto, but has no idea what it means in practice.
The unstable part of the constitution is the current devolution settlement, which provides quite a bit of spending power, but not tax-raising power, to the Scottish government. It’s a machine for breaking apart the Union.
Seems like the Welsh might agree.
Though devomax would give Holyrood more tax raising powers as Brown wants if Labour win next time.
All England wants is parity with the other home nations within the UK
According to the polling you cited, England does not want it.
10% more English voters want an English Parliament than don't
Police Commissioner Savage (formerly of the Met) explained the problem.
“These darned robots insisted on not shooting random black people. And even when they did, they consistently refused to sprinkle some crack on them, afterwards.”
Judicial review has joined death and taxes as one of the unavoidable circumstances of life. Cumbria, like England, if full of people who want to heat homes, travel by air and train and drive cars (all made with lots of steel) but are opposed to each and every way in which these can be brought about.
This one is for the steel. Aiui, UK steel making will basically go extinct along with a bunch of other subsidiary industries without the coal or imports of coal which the government is (was) being stupid about.
If the steel isn’t produced here, and to coal to produce it isn’t mined here, it will be produced and mined elsewhere in the world. The global net effect will be zero. The effect on UK jobs would be disastrous.
British coal mines did not shut down because of climate change concerns, they shut down because it's massively cheaper to get coal from big open pit mines in Colombia or Australia and to ship it to the UK.
There's no future for coal plants that produce at massively about market rates.
If 85% of the mine's coal is set to be exported, I don't see how you work out that the coal produced will cost 'massively above market rates'.
Market rates are not set by through the cycle production costs. They are set by the marginal cost of production, and by supply and demand.
Right now, coal prices are at extraordinary high levels - which is the consequence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and that sending the price of gas rocketing.
The global benchmark for seaborne coal is Newcastle coal (that's Newcastle, Australia). Between 2016 and 2020 it basically traded between $38 and about $90. Covid changed it up a bit, as gas drilling stopped for a while in the US and it went in the $125-150 range, and then Ukraine came along, and it went to $400+.
In other words, if you want to import seaborne coal today, it's costing you about 10x what it was a few years ago.
Lots of new mine projects suddenly look very economic when the price of coal is $400/tonne.
I'm sure this is one of them. And you know what, I'm sure it will wash it's face if the coal price is $150/tonne.
But what if the coal price is $40 (or even $35) again?
Massive open pit mines in Queensland Australia or Colombia or Malaysia or in the Powder River Basin have economies of scale that no mine in the UK could ever match.
By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.
What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).
In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.
This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.
That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.
We need at least one domestic coal mine to keep our heritage railways going.
We could create a heritage village called "Smogtown" where everyone burns Nutty Slack in their grates and watches the Coronation (the last one not the next one) and reminisces about how wonderful life was in the early 1950s.
That's the first bullet-point in Farage's manifesto, isn't it?
By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.
What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).
In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.
This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.
That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.
And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.
Judicial review has joined death and taxes as one of the unavoidable circumstances of life. Cumbria, like England, if full of people who want to heat homes, travel by air and train and drive cars (all made with lots of steel) but are opposed to each and every way in which these can be brought about.
This one is for the steel. Aiui, UK steel making will basically go extinct along with a bunch of other subsidiary industries without the coal or imports of coal which the government is (was) being stupid about.
If the steel isn’t produced here, and to coal to produce it isn’t mined here, it will be produced and mined elsewhere in the world. The global net effect will be zero. The effect on UK jobs would be disastrous.
British coal mines did not shut down because of climate change concerns, they shut down because it's massively cheaper to get coal from big open pit mines in Colombia or Australia and to ship it to the UK.
There's no future for coal plants that produce at massively about market rates.
If 85% of the mine's coal is set to be exported, I don't see how you work out that the coal produced will cost 'massively above market rates'.
Market rates are not set by through the cycle production costs. They are set by the marginal cost of production, and by supply and demand.
Right now, coal prices are at extraordinary high levels - which is the consequence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and that sending the price of gas rocketing.
The global benchmark for seaborne coal is Newcastle coal (that's Newcastle, Australia). Between 2016 and 2020 it basically traded between $38 and about $90. Covid changed it up a bit, as gas drilling stopped for a while in the US and it went in the $125-150 range, and then Ukraine came along, and it went to $400+.
In other words, if you want to import seaborne coal today, it's costing you about 10x what it was a few years ago.
Lots of new mine projects suddenly look very economic when the price of coal is $400/tonne.
I'm sure this is one of them. And you know what, I'm sure it will wash it's face if the coal price is $150/tonne.
But what if the coal price is $40 (or even $35) again?
Massive open pit mines in Queensland Australia or Colombia or Malaysia or in the Powder River Basin have economies of scale that no mine in the UK could ever match.
You can't directly compare thermal coal with coking coal. Different product, different market.
I watched a little bit of PMQ's today and he was very, very rubbish. Even the normal 'Yah boo!' you'd expect from his own side was half (quarter?) hearted.
Judicial review has joined death and taxes as one of the unavoidable circumstances of life. Cumbria, like England, if full of people who want to heat homes, travel by air and train and drive cars (all made with lots of steel) but are opposed to each and every way in which these can be brought about.
This one is for the steel. Aiui, UK steel making will basically go extinct along with a bunch of other subsidiary industries without the coal or imports of coal which the government is (was) being stupid about.
If the steel isn’t produced here, and to coal to produce it isn’t mined here, it will be produced and mined elsewhere in the world. The global net effect will be zero. The effect on UK jobs would be disastrous.
British coal mines did not shut down because of climate change concerns, they shut down because it's massively cheaper to get coal from big open pit mines in Colombia or Australia and to ship it to the UK.
There's no future for coal plants that produce at massively about market rates.
If 85% of the mine's coal is set to be exported, I don't see how you work out that the coal produced will cost 'massively above market rates'.
Market rates are not set by through the cycle production costs. They are set by the marginal cost of production, and by supply and demand.
Right now, coal prices are at extraordinary high levels - which is the consequence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and that sending the price of gas rocketing.
The global benchmark for seaborne coal is Newcastle coal (that's Newcastle, Australia). Between 2016 and 2020 it basically traded between $38 and about $90. Covid changed it up a bit, as gas drilling stopped for a while in the US and it went in the $125-150 range, and then Ukraine came along, and it went to $400+.
In other words, if you want to import seaborne coal today, it's costing you about 10x what it was a few years ago.
Lots of new mine projects suddenly look very economic when the price of coal is $400/tonne.
I'm sure this is one of them. And you know what, I'm sure it will wash it's face if the coal price is $150/tonne.
But what if the coal price is $40 (or even $35) again?
Massive open pit mines in Queensland Australia or Colombia or Malaysia or in the Powder River Basin have economies of scale that no mine in the UK could ever match.
You can't directly compare thermal coal with coking coal. Different product, different market.
That's true:
However... I would note that coking coal also shot the roof when Ukraine was invaded.
I watched a little bit of PMQ's today and he was very, very rubbish. Even the normal 'Yah boo!' you'd expect from his own side was half (quarter?) hearted.
The sweet spot is a Labour - LibDem coalition because Labour unfettered will be excruciating.
By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.
What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).
In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.
This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.
That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.
And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.
Big bulk carriers use very little CO2 compared to the amount of energy they move.
The best solution to the issue of devolution at the moment would be to offer the Scottish parliament more powers with the quid pro quo being a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster. Let us not forget that the number fell from 72 to 59 when the Scottish parliament was introduced. A few more powers and a reduction of Scottish MPs to say 50 would be the most workable compromise since similar scale devolution in England isn't likely .
I gather from the headlines that Sunak's latest big idea is to take on the unions.
Has he ever heard of Ted Heath?
He has heard of Margaret Thatcher
I think the problem is that many people, even those of a centre-right, capitalist persuasion such as myself, can see the point in the unions striking when their pay offers are five or six per cent below inflation.
Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.
From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?
If I worked in the private sector, I would be thinking "why the buggering fuck should taxpayers like me be shelling out for big pay increases for the public sector when I am not getting these pay increases myself?"
The private sector does not 'pay for' the public sector. That's a superficial reductive presentation. The mixed economy is a symbiotic whole. Private supports public supports private supports public etc etc.
Perhaps. Though if the private sector doesn't pay for the state, who does? But that misses the point: if you work for the private sector why would you be cheering on public sector strikers to achieve pay rises that you cannot, because you have to operate in the economic real world?
But in "the economic real world" there are massive numbers of public sector vacancies which can't be filled. The free market response would be a big pay rise.
Jacinda Ardern’s Labour is now at 25% in the last poll.
Partly because she is unfairly blamed for inflation, interest rate hikes, and economic slowdown.
Partly because she is bloody useless.
If that's the Roy Morgan poll, that's ancient history. The last poll I saw had National ahead 38-33 with ACT on 11% and the Greens on 9%. A National-ACT coalition would have an overall majority, albeit small, on those numbers.
We may glean more from the Hamilton West by-election this weekend. The seat was taken by Labour from National at the 2020 election on an 18.5% swing but one poll at the end of last month put the National candidate 13 points up. It will be interesting to see if Ardern's unpopularity (or is it Luxon's popularity) causes this electorate to swing back to the centre-right.
By opening the coal mine in Cumbria we are not increasing the demand for coking coal or the associated CO2 emissions from its use.
What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).
In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.
This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.
That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.
And, of course, significantly reducing CO2 emissions by moving them on rail rather than in highly polluting bulk carriers from a random country on the far side of the planet.
Big bulk carriers use very little CO2 compared to the amount of energy they move.
I watched a little bit of PMQ's today and he was very, very rubbish. Even the normal 'Yah boo!' you'd expect from his own side was half (quarter?) hearted.
The sweet spot is a Labour - LibDem coalition because Labour unfettered will be excruciating.
We need at least one domestic coal mine to keep our heritage railways going.
I went to buy some coal the other day. Hadn't bought any for a couple of years. My previous £7.50 bags of Peruvian coal (they can't sell bags of coal these days, they have to slit it open at the top, and it is years since they sold English coal) were now upwards of £35. It is all now going to Eastern Europe. Hence the coal merchant doesn't sell it. He sells "smokeless" coal at £18 a bag.
That is some inflation number.
They only slit it open for people they dont like (according to my local coal merchant). You just ask for the bags intact and they comply (thats how we do things in the wilds of sussex). I pay £20 for 25k bags of large lump coal. You wont be able to buy it at all from March. They advice I was given is to buy in bulk around Feb time. It wont last forever but then again it wont go off.
Comments
Let us enjoy this sweet spot when we can collaborate with the machines, before they get so clever they take over everything and turn us into funny pets
About six months away, I reckon
By contrast, I am right. HMG will use the generation argument - whether it is morally correct or not (I believe it is absolutely correct, you should wait a generation between these monumental votes) - and when that expires then there will be indyref2, and it will likely be a 2nd term Labour govt that grants it
Most people, including myself, were asked to take pay freezes or pay cuts during Covid, so you are looking at three years now of negative pay growth for a lot of people. That is hard to take, and I suspect you may be surprised at how many people would support strikes for pay rises in line with inflation.
From an economic perspective, yeah, it's great to drive down labour costs. From a personal perspective, how many people will be sympathising with the strikers as the cost of living spirals and employers offer measly below inflation pay "rises" that are actually pay cuts?
John Redwood had an interesting piece on the cost of Government the other day. He questioned the need for a huge Department of Health, managing a huge NHS England, managing huge NHS Trusts, managing actual hospitals. An English Parliament might be just another layer. But if it is that it at least beats a shit load of regional assemblies.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/11/29/britons-tend-oppose-planned-rmt-rail-strikes-winte
You know, like those anti-feminists (eg that Philip Davies bloke) who whenever there's something going on specifically for women jump up and start moaning, "Why don't we have this for men then?"
Like where? Where is it in the legislation?
No other facts exist to compare with that.
An English parliament would keep London being subsidised by the rest of the UK.
The SC did not cnfirm that. It confirmed that the referendum could not be done independently by the SG in terms of the current legislation. Rather different.
Deltapoll has a 20-point Labour lead - some amusing nonsense in the sub samples.
******SUBSAMPLE ALERT*******(try not to laugh too much)
In London, Labour leads 56-21, among the 65+group, the Conservatives lead 50-30 while in Scotland the SNP have 49%, Labour 22%, the Conservatives 13% and the LDs 11%.
Plus I've done lurid worthless things like Bond Trading. I was a Big Swinging Prick. I bet I've done almost as many lurid worthless things as you. Just that I feel bad about it, cursed as I am with a moral compass.
The "generation argument" isn't an argument - it's a "talk to the hand" response to an argument.
I'm not huge on the idea even if it were not the case - it would just be another level of bureaucracy.
As an example and using the old chestnut of Sunday Trading, if Surrey wanted shops to open and Kent wanted them closed, what would be wrong with that if both authorities were reflecting public opinion in their areas?
We have directly-elected local councils to govern us - give them the responsibility and authority to do that governing.
Where I do agree with @BartholomewRoberts is that there is a constitutional mess which needs sorting. Ending two-tier local Government might be a start but resolving London governance would also be crucial - we have a largely symbolic Mayor, a weak and ineffective GLA and the all-powerful Boroughs who enjoyed life without a GLC to intervene. Is there a requirement for a London-wide assembly - could it not be chosen from the Boroughs?
Does the Mayor have any useful function apart from being a tourist attraction?
I really really doubt this
"@nytimes
Peru’s president, Pedro Castillo, announced the dissolution of Congress and the installation of an emergency government to rule by decree, ahead of a scheduled vote to impeach him. Political leaders called the move a coup attempt."
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1600547105835294722
So stand by for two years of Rishi Zombie. Election almost exactly two years from today. As late as possible without campaigning over Christmas - not even the Conservatives would be that careless, surely.
Opening a 1970s-style coal mine to mirror 1970s-style industrial relations is a clever move.
No wonder Barty Bobbins is in favour. He waves the word “democracy” around as an attempted veto, but has no idea what it means in practice.
The unstable part of the constitution is the current devolution settlement, which provides quite a bit of spending power, but not tax-raising power, to the Scottish government. It’s a machine for breaking apart the Union.
Seems like the Welsh might agree.
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1600554682388299869
All England wants is parity with the other home nations within the UK
My god, you really are channeling the disgraced former Prime Minister.
Haven't you got an after dinner speech to write?
Then, of course, I realised that there already is.
There's no future for coal plants that produce at massively about market rates.
It was Paul Ince's refusal to take penalties (probably because he didn't fancy it, rather than because he objected to them conceptually) which led to the admirably-game Gareth Southgate volunteering.
This map, from GfK in Nuremberg, claims to show:
"Money available to spend on food, housing, services, energy costs, private pensions, insurance, vacations, mobility, and consumer purchases."
So I suppose it is about post-tax income.
Unfortunately, further details on methodology are lacking. Has anyone heard of these people before? Its claim that the average welshman has more to spend than the average provincial frenchman seems a bit dubious. Details, such as they are:
https://www.gfk.com/press/average-purchasing-power-of-europeans-in-2022-is-16344
Devolution to smaller parts of England does make sense, because people have attachments and can see the effect of local decisions.
I suspect most counties are a bit too small to run much stuff efficiently, but I think that groups of counties could fairly quickly assemble themselves into something like the old ITV regions map.
Trouble is that there is a triangle, roughly Peterborough/Banbury/Reading that's a bit of a black hole, identity-wise. And important opinion makers live there.
That is some inflation number.
Give the Vale of White Horse back to Berkshire and let them and the Oxonians manage themselves. Etc.
Part of me wants to retire to Hawes just because I think it'd be a great spot for a funeral. It has that slightly thoughtful, reflective quality.
BTW I live in one of the poorer parts of England on this reckoning. We are mostly as happy as the day is long and people's children can buy a house usually in their twenties.
Makes a change from GPT n+1.
Some things are more important.
Learn it.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23175334.kanye-west-told-scotland-most-woke-country-world/
Apparently we control our borders and have woke DAs, fantastic news.
'They bring in, they have open border policies for refugees, the most PC judges, the most woke DAs'
value, imo
as i've pointed out on here, before.
However it is also sensible to assert that you should not keep having referenda without significant change in circumstances, on the off chance of success that leads to an irrevocable hysteresis.
We’ve seen that with Brexit, and the outcome has not been 100% positive.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/support-for-creation-of-a-new-english-parliament-along-the-lines-of-the-existing-scottish-parliament
Partly because she is unfairly blamed for inflation, interest rate hikes, and economic slowdown.
Partly because she is bloody useless.
“These darned robots insisted on not shooting random black people. And even when they did, they consistently refused to sprinkle some crack on them, afterwards.”
Right now, coal prices are at extraordinary high levels - which is the consequence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and that sending the price of gas rocketing.
The global benchmark for seaborne coal is Newcastle coal (that's Newcastle, Australia). Between 2016 and 2020 it basically traded between $38 and about $90. Covid changed it up a bit, as gas drilling stopped for a while in the US and it went in the $125-150 range, and then Ukraine came along, and it went to $400+.
In other words, if you want to import seaborne coal today, it's costing you about 10x what it was a few years ago.
Lots of new mine projects suddenly look very economic when the price of coal is $400/tonne.
I'm sure this is one of them. And you know what, I'm sure it will wash it's face if the coal price is $150/tonne.
But what if the coal price is $40 (or even $35) again?
Massive open pit mines in Queensland Australia or Colombia or Malaysia or in the Powder River Basin have economies of scale that no mine in the UK could ever match.
What we are doing is onshoring production, creating jobs and improving the balance of payments (some of us are old enough to remember when that was a thing).
In addition, we are increasing the number of freight trains that will operate across the North of England.
This greeny-red rail crank approves of the decision.
That's three in a week. House building, onshore wind and now the pit.
However... I would note that coking coal also shot the roof when Ukraine was invaded.
The free market response would be a big pay rise.
We may glean more from the Hamilton West by-election this weekend. The seat was taken by Labour from National at the 2020 election on an 18.5% swing but one poll at the end of last month put the National candidate 13 points up. It will be interesting to see if Ardern's unpopularity (or is it Luxon's popularity) causes this electorate to swing back to the centre-right.
An all European semifinal lineup.