I'm really not sure EV4EL is the great vote winner people think it is. Only last week YouGov asked "In the event that Scotland votes NO but with a much greater level of devolution, which of the following would you most like to see happen in England?
Keep things as they are- 26% (inc 32% Tories) Only English MPs voting for English laws- 29% English parliament- 15% Regional assemblies 10%
In fairness, I don't suppose folk have thought about it that much. There's a sizeable chunk of the electorate that doesn't vote on policies but on personalities. And until now none of those positions have been associated with any particular politician.
Farage on ITV goes after Barnett. EVfEL is a 'first step'. Needs English Parliament and needs constitutional convention England rotten deal currently. Cameron panicking over English Question Hague coming up with solution in committee in few weeks not suitable.
Barnett is an incredibly easy attack. Regardless of what parties argue as Socrates states the simple figures are:-
England: £8,529 Scotland: £10,512
vote UKIP and we will change that. The 3 parties have royally screwed up there...
As you are probably aware that was not the subject at debate. It was regarding Cameron's continuation of the Barnett formula which ensures Scotland receives more in public spending per capita than large parts of England and provides them luxuries of free prescriptions for all and free university education for everyone except the English. Do you not find it ironic that our kids have to pay out £9,000 whilst we subsidise Scotland's Tuition fees?
1) If it wasn't "the subject of debate" why did you mention it? And FWIW I find many things ironic.2) Why single this one out from all the others?
1) As a retort to the response I received from another poster who claimed Scotland needed the additional subsidies because of transport needs and was pointing out that the deprived English regions also had transport considerations which could also be addressed by that funding.
2) Because it demonstrates the sorts of unfairness that a short term measure such as Barnett creates if it is misused by lazy self-serving politicians for decades!
May I suggest next time you jump into a debate half way through you try and find out how it started!
Morning all. After a 22 hour day yesterday I am still a bit shattered but jubilant. My son has screen shot the TV and sent it to is pals on instagram with the single word "domination". Slightly to my surprise (and the incompetence of Yougov) it really wasn't that close after all although we will now no doubt immediately start pretending that it was.
I agree with antifrank's comment downthread (generally a smart thing to do) that it is vanishingly unlikely that this will not spill into further elections. Labour have their work cut out to hold Dundee West and some of their Glasgow and Lanarkshire seats. A significant number of their supporters are going to feel sore and alienated after this.
Areas that were tory in the past but have been voting SNP for yonks in Angus, Perthshire, Aberdeenshire and the borders have remembered who they are. Dozens of BT activists there give them a potential base of younger, more active members. The tories have a real opportunity to become a player in Scottish affairs again and this would do more to heal the Union than anything else I could imagine. Ruth Davidson has been one of the stars of the campaign and is the right leader to help them achieve this.
My expectation is that Salmond will stay a few months but will be gone by the end of the year so Sturgeon can bed herself in as FM for the next Scottish elections. She is highly competent and forceful but she has little of Salmond's guile and charisma. The SNP will miss him.
The turnout was spectacular. Thousands of Scots who have found very little to enthuse themselves about in party politics have either become activists for the first time or after a long time. Scotland needs to find more productive things to care about and to utilise this incredible energy. This was one of the biggest moments in democracy in UK history and shattered though I am I am really proud to have played a small part in it. Scotland itself can be proud of what it achieved.
Morning all. After a 22 hour day yesterday I am still a bit shattered but jubilant. My son has screen shot the TV and sent it to is pals on instagram with the single word "domination". Slightly to my surprise (and the incompetence of Yougov) it really wasn't that close after all although we will now no doubt immediately start pretending that it was.
... .
David - congratulations.
And many grateful thanks for all your superb efforts!
I made the point earlier that if people want to be properly represented, then they need to start asking for proportional representation. Yes I know AV was declined in a referendum, but that was the only choice on the table.
At some point even Tories might see that some form of PR is going be better than long periods in opposition or having to go into coalition with the Lib Dems. Moving to PR might give the Tories the opportunity of forming coalitions with UKIP.
My gut feeling is that PR would probably see all three major parties split to some extent. How these groups then interact with both each other and the larger minor parties would be another question.
There was an article on this site that presented the argument that the Tories should be in favour of PR for the reasons I gave earlier. FPTP really on works when you have two main parties. We now have four parties who will win 10% or more. The party that wins most votes, may not get anywhere near 40%, as they have in the past. Labour could sneek a majority with 35% of the vote and then the Tories might start to think about electoral reform.
I agree with both point and reasoning.
BUT
Call me old-fashioned, but I'd really rather they made the decision based on something less shallow that short term political goals. They should be thinking about it now.
Politicians find it difficult to accept change and they need to be kicked into action. The Tories think they can win a majority and it won't be until they realise that this is not possible, that they will start thinking about electoral reform.
Given the current boundaries and way the votes stack up, Tories have to be about 7% ahead of Labour to win a majority. I can't see it happening.
In the event of Lib Dem meltdown, 4% should be enough
I hope no one has beaten me, I had 55.15 NO 44.85 YES t/o 86.32 I could do with M Smithson advising me on placing some winning bets for my charity LUPUS UK ..
I fear I had 55-49 or 56-44. Can anybody point me to the prediction site from earlier in the week so I can check what my prediction was?
My prediction was YES 44.65% and turnout 84%, so I think I will be close.
Iain Martin looks in with a shot too - very close on both counts. I think I predicted 84% turnout (can't find it now), which was spot on, but 46.9% Yes, which puts me out of contention.
I'm really not sure EV4EL is the great vote winner people think it is. Only last week YouGov asked "In the event that Scotland votes NO but with a much greater level of devolution, which of the following would you most like to see happen in England?
Keep things as they are- 26% (inc 32% Tories) Only English MPs voting for English laws- 29% English parliament- 15% Regional assemblies 10%
I don't think the vast majority of English voters knew AT ALL how unequal the current arrnagements are. But maybe they do now. Farage is going to go on and on and on about it. Dave may use it to screw Labour. England has woken up. It ain't going away. The numbers above will move.
Mr. Twelve, to be fair, Northern Ireland is a different bag of monkeys for historical reasons.
Cameron may not mind if Labour dick about to try and deny the English any fairness whatsoever. It'd allow him to go into the election promising at least some self-governance, whereas Miliband et al. would be against it. I imagine Labour and the Lib Dems may very well collaborate on their plans to carve England into petty little political fiefdoms as an 'alternative'.
Mr. Easterross, not a Scot (as is known), but I would've thought one of the most interesting things of the campaign was that Miliband is electoral kryptonite north of the border. Even less popular than Cameron. Labour could well lose seats in 2015, which I would guess would mostly benefit the SNP.
Are the USA and Germany carved into petty little fiefdoms or is your contention that we are just not capable of doing what others manage easily?
These things take time. With the exception of that inferior braggard county Yorkshire, Cornwall and perhaps Northumberland, I'd say there are few regions who people in England feel connected to. For instance I was born in Derbyshire, and never thought of myself as a Midlander. Likewise, I don't meet many Angles here in Cambridgeshire.
People are connected to their counties; in the case of historic counties, some are very connected. I'd say EVEL and more powers for localise decisions to councils would be the way forwards.
The situation in Germany and USA is very different, and the structures have been in place much longer.
People's connections to their counties vary enormously though. I don't know many people from Bedfordshire or Northamptonshire or Berkshire who feel a particularly strong identity to the place. Most would just be English and British.
Norfolk Anglian, English, British Heptarchy is your friend
Norfolk, where I'm currently sitting, is one county with a very strong local identity, hence the level of support for Naarch. Having a very good daily paper is one possible contributory factor.
Mr. M, wasn't the YouGov poll (final one) very close to the final result?
I'd also avoid categorising Cameron until we get some sort of proper Labour response to English votes for English laws. Once Miliband leaves the bunker and tells us his view we'll have a better idea of how things stack up (also worth hearing what Clegg thinks).
Let us take this EVEL rubbish further . Surrey votes for Surrey laws ,Manchester votes for Manchester laws , Cambridge votes for not Cambridgeshire government ( how can Conservatives govern Cambridge when they cannot get a single councillor in the city ) , Whitehawk estate ( Brighton ) laws for the Whitehawk estate and so on till we have complete anarchy .
Mr. Twelve, to be fair, Northern Ireland is a different bag of monkeys for historical reasons.
Cameron may not mind if Labour dick about to try and deny the English any fairness whatsoever. It'd allow him to go into the election promising at least some self-governance, whereas Miliband et al. would be against it. I imagine Labour and the Lib Dems may very well collaborate on their plans to carve England into petty little political fiefdoms as an 'alternative'.
Mr. Easterross, not a Scot (as is known), but I would've thought one of the most interesting things of the campaign was that Miliband is electoral kryptonite north of the border. Even less popular than Cameron. Labour could well lose seats in 2015, which I would guess would mostly benefit the SNP.
Are the USA and Germany carved into petty little fiefdoms or is your contention that we are just not capable of doing what others manage easily?
These things take time. With the exception of that inferior braggard county Yorkshire, Cornwall and perhaps Northumberland, I'd say there are few regions who people in England feel connected to. For instance I was born in Derbyshire, and never thought of myself as a Midlander. Likewise, I don't meet many Angles here in Cambridgeshire.
People are connected to their counties; in the case of historic counties, some are very connected. I'd say EVEL and more powers for localise decisions to councils would be the way forwards.
The situation in Germany and USA is very different, and the structures have been in place much longer.
People's connections to their counties vary enormously though. I don't know many people from Bedfordshire or Northamptonshire or Berkshire who feel a particularly strong identity to the place. Most would just be English and British.
Norfolk Anglian, English, British Heptarchy is your friend
Norfolk, where I'm currently sitting, is one county with a very strong local identity, hence the level of support for Naarch. Having a very good daily paper is one possible contributory factor.
Tim Montgomerie@TimMontgomerie·6 mins It's almost as if Miliband didn't see England question coming. But there he stood, motionless on the track with a locomotive heading at him.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·10 mins Ed Miliband literally has no position on English votes. None. Unbelievable.
I also love that moment when the Khasi tells the princess to go and pay respects to her mother:
P (Whispers) 'Which one is she again?' K 'Oh, how many more times? She with the hair like burnished copper and the eyes as green as emeralds… and No.32 stamped on her back.'
Anyway, I agree entirely with those who suggest the Conservatives should crack on English votes for English laws rapidly.
So having won in Scotland, the Conservatives' new plan should be to drive Scotland away again, and alienate Wales (which probably means losing half a dozen Welsh Tory MPs) . And it should do this in order to devolve power mainly on issues which favour Labour rather than their own party.
It's a view but somehow I don't see CCHQ sharing it.
I do hope so @DavidL - if Cameron and all the footsoldiers from BetterTogether have galvanised the Scottish Tory vote for GE2015 - what a result that would be.
Labour have their work cut out to hold Dundee West and some of their Glasgow and Lanarkshire seats. A significant number of their supporters are going to feel sore and alienated after this.
Areas that were tory in the past but have been voting SNP for yonks in Angus, Perthshire, Aberdeenshire and the borders have remembered who they are. Dozens of BT activists there give them a potential base of younger, more active members. The tories have a real opportunity to become a player in Scottish affairs again and this would do more to heal the Union than anything else I could imagine. Ruth Davidson has been one of the stars of the campaign and is the right leader to help them achieve this.
My expectation is that Salmond will stay a few months but will be gone by the end of the year so Sturgeon can bed herself in as FM for the next Scottish elections. She is highly competent and forceful but she has little of Salmond's guile and charisma. The SNP will miss him.
Some nonsense here; if the Scottish Tories do benefit, it's not as a result of any intervention by Cameron or the party in England, which was conspicuously absent for 99% of the campaign. We need to be careful that history is not rewritten here.
People don't seem to quite understand how constitutionally stupid things currently are. We have a UK government in a UK parliament. We have UK government departments in London called the Home Office, the Department for Health, Transport, etc etc. Yet these departments are ENGLISH Departments of Health, Transport etc because those policy areas have already been devolved to their respective national parliaments.
We have in practice already federated the UK
Well then, the job is nearly done. All that we have to do is tidy it up and finish it. Westminster can become the English parliament and UK issues can be dealt with by each parliament sending representatives to a UK council to vote. A variation, more or less, on how the EU does it.
No one needs to set a bear trap for Labour - they are quite competent at digging their own holes and then falling into them. Their last 13 year stint nearly wrecked the UK economy and their devolution plans nearly wrecked the UK as a country. They did not exactly cover themselves with glory in the 1970s either.
I'm in favour of EV4EL but the budget as a whole is the United Kingdom budget so whichever party in Westminster on the entirety of it's seats will have to form the UK Gov't.
Also I can't really see Scottish Labour going quietly into the night now...
I'm really not sure EV4EL is the great vote winner people think it is. Only last week YouGov asked "In the event that Scotland votes NO but with a much greater level of devolution, which of the following would you most like to see happen in England?
Keep things as they are- 26% (inc 32% Tories) Only English MPs voting for English laws- 29% English parliament- 15% Regional assemblies 10%
I don't think the vast majority of English voters knew AT ALL how unequal the current arrnagements are. But maybe they do now. Farage is going to go on and on and on about it. Dave may use it to screw Labour. England has woken up. It ain't going away. The numbers above will move.
Its a bit different if you ask the straight question:
Mr. Senior, England's one land. I've long been against regionalisation (a Yorkshire Parliament, for example, is a bloody silly idea). Why should Scotland get devolution and England not?
I'd prefer an English Parliament but English votes for English laws, if correctly drawn up [which is a big if], is fairer than the current situation.
I'd like to congrtulate OGH. This site is just fabulous and thoroughly deserves to be the most read political blog and Mike one of the country's most influential oldies. We have a very mature and knowledgeable debate that is unique and widely read and so does shape the output of newspapers and politicians' messages - and therefore politics itself.
I myself feel empowered and minimally influential merely by being a regular poster on PB - as should all the rest of us. Perhaps more than we realise.
So three cheers and big HUZZAH! for Mr Smithson. (and his minions)
I do hope so @DavidL - if Cameron and all the footsoldiers from BetterTogether have galvanised the Scottish Tory vote for GE2015 - what a result that would be.
It would be impressive but I cannot believe it will happen. The narrative of Tories = Evil, jack-booted, baby-eating fascists seems to be too well established. It needs to be reversed but I cannot see how the Tories will manage it.
On Labour's response to EV4EL - we're back with everyday party politics, I see, didn't take long! We obviously need all-party negotiations but would IMO be unwise to jump into any particular answer overnight.
The constitutional imbalance needs to be addressed (though it won't be as big an issue on doorsteps as you might think); the objective problem is that the two widely-canvassed solutions both have practical difficulties, which is why they've not been done already. EV4EL risks producing a Labour Government with a Tory majority on selected issues, with gridlock and endless haggling and wriggling over "what is an English-only issue?" - there is a parallel to lame-duck US Presidencies, which are rarely successful, with added definition issues to make it messier. An English Parliament creates a fresh layer of politicians, and IMO is unlikely to go down well when people think that through.
It'll be interesting to see what the polls do over the next few days, and a Scottish poll for the GE would be especially intriguing.
Miliband isn't going to be worried by the Tory rush to implement their own vision of English devolution and he'll be right and electorally safe to stymie Tory attempts to railroad them through. The North of England doesn't want permanent Tory subjugation either.
The lesson of these referenda is that constitutional changes must be thought through and have some sort of non partisan backing. The Tory triumphalism on here is wholly detatched from that reality.
Winners; Jim Murphy, J.K. Rowling, the AngrySalmond twitter feed, Alex Salmond, David Cameron.
Losers; Ed Miliband, Alistair Darling, Dougie Alexander
Sure, Alex Salmond is a flawed character, but I doubt whether anyone would have done so well. It is an amazing achievement to have got a referendum in the first place, and to have got so close to winning it. And clearly, Salmond has only been enormously beneficial for Scotland. When he goes, for sure the SNP will miss him.
No ran a poor campaign, and Alistair Darling and Douglas Alexander must share some of the blame.
David Cameron played this just right. I think his call over permitting the referendum was correct, and his call that the question be on independence alone was also correct.
JK Rowling is the only celebrity that impressed me. She engaged with the issue and she made a thoughtful contribution to the debate, explaining what had led her to her decision. She made a very better case for No than any of the politicians.
Ed Miliband had all the shortcomings that I feared. The Labour Party would be better off with pretty much anyone else, certainly Jim Murphy.
But, The AngrySalmond twitter feed is the only thing about the referendum I will really miss.
People don't seem to quite understand how constitutionally stupid things currently are. We have a UK government in a UK parliament. We have UK government departments in London called the Home Office, the Department for Health, Transport, etc etc. Yet these departments are ENGLISH Departments of Health, Transport etc because those policy areas have already been devolved to their respective national parliaments.
We have in practice already federated the UK
Well then, the job is nearly done. All that we have to do is tidy it up and finish it. Westminster can become the English parliament and UK issues can be dealt with by each parliament sending representatives to a UK council to vote. A variation, more or less, on how the EU does it.
No one needs to set a bear trap for Labour - they are quite competent at digging their own holes and then falling into them. Their last 13 year stint nearly wrecked the UK economy and their devolution plans nearly wrecked the UK as a country. They did not exactly cover themselves with glory in the 1970s either.
Wasn't it Brown who started this ball rolling? Are you sure its not he who set the bear trap and Dave's stepped squarely into it. Brown wrote the book on triangulation. He would not have set a timetable if he thought it would damage Labour severely.
He may have many failings but political tactics is not normally one of them.
It's the oldies wot won it. Yesterday when people were arriving at the polling station in wheelchairs on crutches using walking sticks or being carried by slightly younger relatives I thought it said something about the electors in Aberdeen. It was actually about an extraordinary determination to vote this thing out. It was quite humbling and I've never seen anything like it.
Allegra Stratton@BBCAllegra·28 secs Miliband finished and nothing on Cameron's English votes for laws... John Denham wanted Miliband to rise to the moment on this.
Miss Plato, shade unfair on old Pyrrhus, who was a very competent general, king six times (of three places twice...) and known to be very loyal to those close to him.
I wonder if Miliband will hide for as long as he did over Rotherham (not sure he's actually emerged from that, technically. Has he made a statement beyond a tweet about it?).
On Labour's response to EV4EL - we're back with everyday party politics, I see, didn't take long! We obviously need all-party negotiations but would IMO be unwise to jump into any particular answer overnight.
The constitutional imbalance needs to be addressed (though it won't be as big an issue on doorsteps as you might think); the objective problem is that the two widely-canvassed solutions both have practical difficulties, which is why they've not been done already. EV4EL risks producing a Labour Government with a Tory majority on selected issues, with gridlock and endless haggling and wriggling over "what is an English-only issue?" - there is a parallel to lame-duck US Presidencies, which are rarely successful, with added definition issues to make it messier. An English Parliament creates a fresh layer of politicians, and IMO is unlikely to go down well when people think that through.
It'll be interesting to see what the polls do over the next few days, and a Scottish poll for the GE would be especially intriguing.
Now now naughty naughty Mr Palmer. Don't be such a lame duck. If they can differentiate between the responsibilities of Westminster, Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh they can differentiate for England as well
Mr. Senior, England's one land. I've long been against regionalisation (a Yorkshire Parliament, for example, is a bloody silly idea). Why should Scotland get devolution and England not?
I'd prefer an English Parliament but English votes for English laws, if correctly drawn up [which is a big if], is fairer than the current situation.
As I’ve said before, I rather the regional idea, but if it’s non-starter, then fair enough. If it’s going to be an English Parliament to get EV4EL ...... which is fine ...... then so be it. However, that does beg the question of how you a) divvy up the taxes ....... because no way can you run defence or foreign affairs ..... just two examples ..... “locally” and b) arrange a representative “federal” assembly. PR elected HoL is a possibility but on a proportional basis there’d be a massive English bias.
I also love that moment when the Khasi tells the princess to go and pay respects to her mother:
P (Whispers) 'Which one is she again?' K 'Oh, how many more times? She with the hair like burnished copper and the eyes as green as emeralds… and No.32 stamped on her back.'
I do hope so @DavidL - if Cameron and all the footsoldiers from BetterTogether have galvanised the Scottish Tory vote for GE2015 - what a result that would be.
Labour have their work cut out to hold Dundee West and some of their Glasgow and Lanarkshire seats. A significant number of their supporters are going to feel sore and alienated after this.
Areas that were tory in the past but have been voting SNP for yonks in Angus, Perthshire, Aberdeenshire and the borders have remembered who they are. Dozens of BT activists there give them a potential base of younger, more active members. The tories have a real opportunity to become a player in Scottish affairs again and this would do more to heal the Union than anything else I could imagine. Ruth Davidson has been one of the stars of the campaign and is the right leader to help them achieve this.
My expectation is that Salmond will stay a few months but will be gone by the end of the year so Sturgeon can bed herself in as FM for the next Scottish elections. She is highly competent and forceful but she has little of Salmond's guile and charisma. The SNP will miss him.
Time to wheel out my outside bet for 2015.... Con GAIN Banff and Buchan
It doesn't look quite so outside after last night. In an attempt to win the vote the SNP had to nail their colours to the mast and come out as more left wing and egalitarian than Labour. This gave them their successes in Dundee, Glasgow and Lanarkshire but it hurt them a lot in the areas they actually have Westminster seats such as Banff and Buchan and indeed Angus.
At the moment the tories have an opportunity to re-establish themselves in these areas but it is only an opportunity and they still need to grab it. This means mining the BT database effectively and persuading those who became activists in this area that their work is not finished. It won't be easy because the tory party is starting from such an incredibly low base but it is possible.
Miliband isn't going to be worried by the Tory rush to implement their own vision of English devolution and he'll be right and electorally safe to stymie Tory attempts to railroad them through. The North of England doesn't want permanent Tory subjugation either.
The lesson of these referenda is that constitutional changes must be thought through and have some sort of non partisan backing. The Tory triumphalism on here is wholly detatched from that reality.
And for newcomers the question of extra politicians is a red herring.
Provide an English Parliament with 530MP's (the same as now) and create a Fed UK with two houses and a collective total of say 300 or 400 representatives and scrap the current Houses of Commons and Lords.
So at most you have 900 representatives whereas the current arrangement is 650 MPs plus 828 peers gives you a total of 1482 politicians. 1482 less 900 is saving of 582 people (682 if you go for 300 in the Fed UK Houses)
More democracy, less politicians and likely less cost. Job done!
Wasn't it Brown who started this ball rolling? Are you sure its not he who set the bear trap and Dave's stepped squarely into it. Brown wrote the book on triangulation. He would not have set a timetable if he thought it would damage Labour severely.
I have no confidence in Mr Brown. I recall his administration as being paralysed by indecision and riven with filthy politics and his acolytes seemed more obsessed with doing damage to anyone who questioned them than actually doing the right thing for the country.
And for newcomers the question of extra politicians is a red herring.
Provide an English Parliament with 530MP's (the same as now) and create a Fed UK with two houses and a collective total of say 300 or 400 representatives and scrap the current Houses of Commons and Lords.
So at most you have 900 representatives whereas the current arrangement is 650 MPs plus 828 peers gives you a total of 1482 politicians. 1482 less 900 is saving of 582 people (682 if you go for 300 in the Fed UK Houses)
More democracy, less politicians and likely less cost. Job done!
It's not the politicians that cost the money: it's the thousands of bureaucracy jobs to support the new layer of government.
"Turnout The number of electors who voted in the region. This includes those who spoilt their ballot paper either intentionally or accidentally. It does not include postal voters whose vote was rejected because they could not prove their identity."
Wasn't it Brown who started this ball rolling? Are you sure its not he who set the bear trap and Dave's stepped squarely into it. Brown wrote the book on triangulation. He would not have set a timetable if he thought it would damage Labour severely.
I have no confidence in Mr Brown. I recall his administration as being paralysed by indecision and riven with filthy politics and his acolytes seemed more obsessed with doing damage to anyone who questioned them than actually doing the right thing for the country.
Indeed I'm just pointing out his role in all this.....
There's plenty of hilariously bitter people on the Guardian comment section..
'Roughly half of any population is below average intelligence. Thus the no vote. When you factor in all the Poles who were allowed to vote who didn't want to lose the dole, you can why the outcome. Shame for Scotland.'
'I see this as nothing more than a win for bullies and English diospora. My heart is with the true scots who have been let down, again'
...unwise to jump into any particular answer overnight.
Labour need a position on this or the Tory proposal comes to be seen as the default and obvious answer.
The obvious thing to do is to be bolder than the Tories to put them on the defensive. Come up with a plan that involves dissolving the current House of Lords to ensure you don't have a net increase in politicians and you can put the Tories onto the defensive.
In the current political mood you have to avoid being in the position of defending the status quo - it ended up not being an option in the referendum with the choice between independence and further devolution.
Farage on ITV goes after Barnett. EVfEL is a 'first step'. Needs English Parliament and needs constitutional convention England rotten deal currently. Cameron panicking over English Question Hague coming up with solution in committee in few weeks not suitable.
Barnett is an incredibly easy attack. Regardless of what parties argue as Socrates states the simple figures are:-
England: £8,529 Scotland: £10,512
vote UKIP and we will change that. The 3 parties have royally screwed up there...
As you are probably aware that was not the subject at debate. It was regarding Cameron's continuation of the Barnett formula which ensures Scotland receives more in public spending per capita than large parts of England and provides them luxuries of free prescriptions for all and free university education for everyone except the English. Do you not find it ironic that our kids have to pay out £9,000 whilst we subsidise Scotland's Tuition fees?
1) If it wasn't "the subject of debate" why did you mention it? And FWIW I find many things ironic.2) Why single this one out from all the others?
1) As a retort to the response I received from another poster who claimed Scotland needed the additional subsidies because of transport needs and was pointing out that the deprived English regions also had transport considerations which could also be addressed by that funding.
2) Because it demonstrates the sorts of unfairness that a short term measure such as Barnett creates if it is misused by lazy self-serving politicians for decades!
May I suggest next time you jump into a debate half way through you try and find out how it started!
May I in turn suggest that you recognise the etiquette of forum threads. They are public footpaths, not front lawns belonging to whoever started them.
Note to self. I have just asked a Kipper to respect etiquette. What have I done with my brains this morning?
I really hope Labour don't do anything on the English question. It fits a perfect UKIP narrative to use against them in white working class seats. "Labour doesn't care about you at all. They will continue to have near open borders for immigrants of other cultures to come here, they want multiculturalism so the immigrants don't have to integrate, they want to move power from Britain to Europe, they have committed to spending more on Scots than on you, and they'll give more power for Scots to decide their own issues while they still have a say on your country. The English are their last priority and they don't represent your interests at all."
And for newcomers the question of extra politicians is a red herring.
Provide an English Parliament with 530MP's (the same as now) and create a Fed UK with two houses and a collective total of say 300 or 400 representatives and scrap the current Houses of Commons and Lords.
So at most you have 900 representatives whereas the current arrangement is 650 MPs plus 828 peers gives you a total of 1482 politicians. 1482 less 900 is saving of 582 people (682 if you go for 300 in the Fed UK Houses)
More democracy, less politicians and likely less cost. Job done!
It's not the politicians that cost the money: it's the thousands of bureaucracy jobs to support the new layer of government.
If you apply subsidiarity properly then much of the new bureaucracy is just the old bureaucracy rebranded. It is not creating new functions its restructuring those that already exist. Its not like Scotland or Wales which were additional. This replaces or relocates current functions. Therefore the additional bureaucracy needed is minimal.
I am working on it, but cannot yet confirm for sure because this could come down to semantics.
I may be incorrectly transposing the BBC's "Rejected Ballots" into Spoilt Ballots. If those rejected ballots were postal voters whose vote was rejected because they could not prove their identity, then they would not be included in the turnout.
...unwise to jump into any particular answer overnight.
Labour need a position on this or the Tory proposal comes to be seen as the default and obvious answer.
The obvious thing to do is to be bolder than the Tories to put them on the defensive. Come up with a plan that involves dissolving the current House of Lords to ensure you don't have a net increase in politicians and you can put the Tories onto the defensive.
In the current political mood you have to avoid being in the position of defending the status quo - it ended up not being an option in the referendum with the choice between independence and further devolution.
Absolutely, the Labour Party needs to do something it seems to currently hate; define a position and campaign on it. Who knows, I might even find myself voting for it, not that in Ludlow it would make any difference. The status quo is dead in the water.
And for newcomers the question of extra politicians is a red herring.
Provide an English Parliament with 530MP's (the same as now) and create a Fed UK with two houses and a collective total of say 300 or 400 representatives and scrap the current Houses of Commons and Lords.
So at most you have 900 representatives whereas the current arrangement is 650 MPs plus 828 peers gives you a total of 1482 politicians. 1482 less 900 is saving of 582 people (682 if you go for 300 in the Fed UK Houses)
More democracy, less politicians and likely less cost. Job done!
Reforming the HoL to an English only parliament (PR perhaps ?) would be a great idea but we've seen what happens to HoL reforms...
And for newcomers the question of extra politicians is a red herring.
Provide an English Parliament with 530MP's (the same as now) and create a Fed UK with two houses and a collective total of say 300 or 400 representatives and scrap the current Houses of Commons and Lords.
So at most you have 900 representatives whereas the current arrangement is 650 MPs plus 828 peers gives you a total of 1482 politicians. 1482 less 900 is saving of 582 people (682 if you go for 300 in the Fed UK Houses)
More democracy, less politicians and likely less cost. Job done!
Reforming the HoL to an English only parliament (PR perhaps ?) would be a great idea but we've seen what happens to HoL reforms...
You can't make omelettes...... If we say we can't then we wont and we'll be stuck with the rubbish we have now...
...unwise to jump into any particular answer overnight.
Labour need a position on this or the Tory proposal comes to be seen as the default and obvious answer.
The obvious thing to do is to be bolder than the Tories to put them on the defensive. Come up with a plan that involves dissolving the current House of Lords to ensure you don't have a net increase in politicians and you can put the Tories onto the defensive.
In the current political mood you have to avoid being in the position of defending the status quo - it ended up not being an option in the referendum with the choice between independence and further devolution.
Absolutely, the Labour Party needs to do something it seems to currently hate; define a position and campaign on it. Who knows, I might even find myself voting for it, not that in Ludlow it would make any difference. The status quo is dead in the water.
The obvious line for Labour to take is to support EVOEL in return for PR (presumably an additional member list system as that's the one they gave Scotland, Wales and London).
I'd like to congrtulate OGH. This site is just fabulous and thoroughly deserves to be the most read political blog and Mike one of the country's most influential oldies. We have a very mature and knowledgeable debate that is unique and widely read and so does shape the output of newspapers and politicians' messages - and therefore politics itself.
I myself feel empowered and minimally influential merely by being a regular poster on PB - as should all the rest of us. Perhaps more than we realise.
So three cheers and big HUZZAH! for Mr Smithson. (and his minions)
Agreed. Also a shout-out for Robert's careful contingency planning, ensuring that the site was able to deal with 10x the usual traffic.
I really hope Labour don't do anything on the English question. It fits a perfect UKIP narrative to use against them in white working class seats. "Labour doesn't care about you at all. They will continue to have near open borders for immigrants of other cultures to come here, they want multiculturalism so the immigrants don't have to integrate, they want to move power from Britain to Europe, they have committed to spending more on Scots than on you, and they'll give more power for Scots to decide their own issues while they still have a say on your country. The English are their last priority and they don't represent your interests at all."
Labour were bigging up the idea of devolution to regional urban centres pandering to their municipal councils. I really can't see that one working after Mid Staffs and Rotherham.
It's the oldies wot won it. Yesterday when people were arriving at the polling station in wheelchairs on crutches using walking sticks or being carried by slightly younger relatives I thought it said something about the electors in Aberdeen. It was actually about an extraordinary determination to vote this thing out. It was quite humbling and I've never seen anything like it.
Several of them got there in my wife's car!
You are right. It was an astonishing experience and a dramatic outcome for democracy. If only politicians talked about what people really care about more often!
...unwise to jump into any particular answer overnight.
Labour need a position on this or the Tory proposal comes to be seen as the default and obvious answer.
The obvious thing to do is to be bolder than the Tories to put them on the defensive. Come up with a plan that involves dissolving the current House of Lords to ensure you don't have a net increase in politicians and you can put the Tories onto the defensive.
In the current political mood you have to avoid being in the position of defending the status quo - it ended up not being an option in the referendum with the choice between independence and further devolution.
Indeed. If Labour vote against EVEL then it becomes a massive stick to beat them with at the GE in England. The genie is out of the bottle and they need to get on the front foot.
Nick P seems to think a lot of people don't care but the Barnett 'bribe' in particular rather than the extra powers has gone down very badly with people I've been talking to at work (in Oxfordshire)
Miliband isn't going to be worried by the Tory rush to implement their own vision of English devolution and he'll be right and electorally safe to stymie Tory attempts to railroad them through. The North of England doesn't want permanent Tory subjugation either.
The lesson of these referenda is that constitutional changes must be thought through and have some sort of non partisan backing. The Tory triumphalism on here is wholly detatched from that reality.
I really hope Labour don't do anything on the English question. It fits a perfect UKIP narrative to use against them in white working class seats. "Labour doesn't care about you at all. They will continue to have near open borders for immigrants of other cultures to come here, they want multiculturalism so the immigrants don't have to integrate, they want to move power from Britain to Europe, they have committed to spending more on Scots than on you, and they'll give more power for Scots to decide their own issues while they still have a say on your country. The English are their last priority and they don't represent your interests at all."
Labour were bigging up the idea of devolution to regional urban centres pandering to their municipal councils. I really can't see that one working after Mid Staffs and Rotherham.
But that, in essence is an entirely separate issue from dealing with WLQ and EV4EL. Devolving power to the regions does nothing for the WLQ, as it will always exist.
Anyway, I agree entirely with those who suggest the Conservatives should crack on English votes for English laws rapidly.
So having won in Scotland, the Conservatives' new plan should be to drive Scotland away again, and alienate Wales (which probably means losing half a dozen Welsh Tory MPs) . And it should do this in order to devolve power mainly on issues which favour Labour rather than their own party.
It's a view but somehow I don't see CCHQ sharing it.
The only way Scotland and Wales can be kept happy is by giving them one sided influence over what happens in England? If that's the Union, I don't want it.
...unwise to jump into any particular answer overnight.
Labour need a position on this or the Tory proposal comes to be seen as the default and obvious answer.
The obvious thing to do is to be bolder than the Tories to put them on the defensive. Come up with a plan that involves dissolving the current House of Lords to ensure you don't have a net increase in politicians and you can put the Tories onto the defensive.
In the current political mood you have to avoid being in the position of defending the status quo - it ended up not being an option in the referendum with the choice between independence and further devolution.
Absolutely, the Labour Party needs to do something it seems to currently hate; define a position and campaign on it. Who knows, I might even find myself voting for it, not that in Ludlow it would make any difference. The status quo is dead in the water.
The obvious line for Labour to take is to support EVOEL in return for PR (presumably an additional member list system as that's the one they gave Scotland, Wales and London).
Seriously? On current vote shares UKIP and the Greens will benefit (their vote share is higher than their proportion of seats) whilst Labour and Tories would lose out and the Libdems given their low levels of support probably wouldn't see much change
I'd like to congrtulate OGH. This site is just fabulous and thoroughly deserves to be the most read political blog and Mike one of the country's most influential oldies. We have a very mature and knowledgeable debate that is unique and widely read and so does shape the output of newspapers and politicians' messages - and therefore politics itself.
I myself feel empowered and minimally influential merely by being a regular poster on PB - as should all the rest of us. Perhaps more than we realise.
So three cheers and big HUZZAH! for Mr Smithson. (and his minions)
...unwise to jump into any particular answer overnight.
Labour need a position on this or the Tory proposal comes to be seen as the default and obvious answer.
The obvious thing to do is to be bolder than the Tories to put them on the defensive. Come up with a plan that involves dissolving the current House of Lords to ensure you don't have a net increase in politicians and you can put the Tories onto the defensive.
In the current political mood you have to avoid being in the position of defending the status quo - it ended up not being an option in the referendum with the choice between independence and further devolution.
Absolutely, the Labour Party needs to do something it seems to currently hate; define a position and campaign on it. Who knows, I might even find myself voting for it, not that in Ludlow it would make any difference. The status quo is dead in the water.
The obvious line for Labour to take is to support EVOEL in return for PR (presumably an additional member list system as that's the one they gave Scotland, Wales and London).
Why the hell would Labour want PR? They do the best out of the current system by far.
...unwise to jump into any particular answer overnight.
Labour need a position on this or the Tory proposal comes to be seen as the default and obvious answer.
The obvious thing to do is to be bolder than the Tories to put them on the defensive. Come up with a plan that involves dissolving the current House of Lords to ensure you don't have a net increase in politicians and you can put the Tories onto the defensive.
In the current political mood you have to avoid being in the position of defending the status quo - it ended up not being an option in the referendum with the choice between independence and further devolution.
Absolutely, the Labour Party needs to do something it seems to currently hate; define a position and campaign on it. Who knows, I might even find myself voting for it, not that in Ludlow it would make any difference. The status quo is dead in the water.
The obvious line for Labour to take is to support EVOEL in return for PR (presumably an additional member list system as that's the one they gave Scotland, Wales and London).
Have you looked at the opinion polls? Tories + UKIP added together would be a very powerful block.
The concept of a progressive majority isn't talked about much nowadays. If anything the opinion polls have almost a right wing majority.
I really hope Labour don't do anything on the English question. It fits a perfect UKIP narrative to use against them in white working class seats. "Labour doesn't care about you at all. They will continue to have near open borders for immigrants of other cultures to come here, they want multiculturalism so the immigrants don't have to integrate, they want to move power from Britain to Europe, they have committed to spending more on Scots than on you, and they'll give more power for Scots to decide their own issues while they still have a say on your country. The English are their last priority and they don't represent your interests at all."
Labour were bigging up the idea of devolution to regional urban centres pandering to their municipal councils. I really can't see that one working after Mid Staffs and Rotherham.
But that, in essence is an entirely separate issue from dealing with WLQ and EV4EL. Devolving power to the regions does nothing for the WLQ, as it will always exist.
There's no reason you cannot do both.
Well that may as well be but my impression was that Labour see it as a replacement for EVfEL.
On Labour's response to EV4EL - we're back with everyday party politics, I see, didn't take long! We obviously need all-party negotiations but would IMO be unwise to jump into any particular answer overnight.
The constitutional imbalance needs to be addressed (though it won't be as big an issue on doorsteps as you might think); the objective problem is that the two widely-canvassed solutions both have practical difficulties, which is why they've not been done already. EV4EL risks producing a Labour Government with a Tory majority on selected issues, with gridlock and endless haggling and wriggling over "what is an English-only issue?" - there is a parallel to lame-duck US Presidencies, which are rarely successful, with added definition issues to make it messier. An English Parliament creates a fresh layer of politicians, and IMO is unlikely to go down well when people think that through.
It'll be interesting to see what the polls do over the next few days, and a Scottish poll for the GE would be especially intriguing.
This is utterly disingenuous Nick. Clearly an English/Welsh only issue is one which has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Anything which is decided for Scotland at the Scottish Parliament should be decided for England and Wales by their MPs alone. It doesn't even need a separate room. Simply a declaration by the Speaker of any vote being either UK wide or specific to one country.
So the Scot's have voted to stay, Her Majesty's Realm is secure for the rest of her life and in doing all of this England is going to get it's own Parliament that could lock Labour out of power for a generation.
I wonder how much the oldies voted no due to having a lot of money tied up in assets and pensions rather than wanting to stay in the Union. Is there any data on that?
I really hope Labour don't do anything on the English question. It fits a perfect UKIP narrative to use against them in white working class seats. "Labour doesn't care about you at all. They will continue to have near open borders for immigrants of other cultures to come here, they want multiculturalism so the immigrants don't have to integrate, they want to move power from Britain to Europe, they have committed to spending more on Scots than on you, and they'll give more power for Scots to decide their own issues while they still have a say on your country. The English are their last priority and they don't represent your interests at all."
Labour were bigging up the idea of devolution to regional urban centres pandering to their municipal councils. I really can't see that one working after Mid Staffs and Rotherham.
But that, in essence is an entirely separate issue from dealing with WLQ and EV4EL. Devolving power to the regions does nothing for the WLQ, as it will always exist.
There's no reason you cannot do both.
Well that may as well be but my impression was that Labour see it as a replacement for EVfEL.
Well I'm sure that's how labour would want it. But it would be 'again' (although it clearly backfired with Scotland) carving up their own strongholds for their own control, whilst having disproportional control over the rest of the country.
No surprise that the first 'region' they wanted to set an assembly for was the North East...
So the Scot's have voted to stay, Her Majesty's Realm is secure for the rest of her life and in doing all of this England is going to get it's own Parliament that could lock Labour out of power for a generation.
Not a bad outcome then? :^O
If only but Labour have proved perfectly adequate in winning England when the Tories have overstepped their position and in anycase no one other than Nige is offering any sort of English Parliament. We can have English representatives but we can't have English Home Rule. Only the UK Government can rule England according to Wet Willy Hague..
Comments
Remember those undecided voters? Returning officer just confirmed 690 people ticked both boxes on their ballot sheet #indyref
And many grateful thanks for all your superb efforts!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/scotland-decides/results
i cant see how it could have gone any better for him.
the tories will get a bounce in the polls
Tim Montgomerie@TimMontgomerie·6 mins
It's almost as if Miliband didn't see England question coming. But there he stood, motionless on the track with a locomotive heading at him.
Dan Hodges@DPJHodges·10 mins
Ed Miliband literally has no position on English votes. None. Unbelievable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8atKXFZefA
I also love that moment when the Khasi tells the princess to go and pay respects to her mother:
P (Whispers) 'Which one is she again?'
K 'Oh, how many more times? She with the hair like burnished copper and the eyes as green as emeralds… and No.32 stamped on her back.'
It's a view but somehow I don't see CCHQ sharing it.
No one needs to set a bear trap for Labour - they are quite competent at digging their own holes and then falling into them. Their last 13 year stint nearly wrecked the UK economy and their devolution plans nearly wrecked the UK as a country. They did not exactly cover themselves with glory in the 1970s either.
Also I can't really see Scottish Labour going quietly into the night now...
http://toque.co.uk/english-parliament-opinion-polls
Thanks, once I've removed duplicate entries I'll setup a competition results page.
EDIT: so is it 84.51 or 84.59 ?
I'd prefer an English Parliament but English votes for English laws, if correctly drawn up [which is a big if], is fairer than the current situation.
I myself feel empowered and minimally influential merely by being a regular poster on PB - as should all the rest of us. Perhaps more than we realise.
So three cheers and big HUZZAH! for Mr Smithson. (and his minions)
Turnout was 84.51047674%
The constitutional imbalance needs to be addressed (though it won't be as big an issue on doorsteps as you might think); the objective problem is that the two widely-canvassed solutions both have practical difficulties, which is why they've not been done already. EV4EL risks producing a Labour Government with a Tory majority on selected issues, with gridlock and endless haggling and wriggling over "what is an English-only issue?" - there is a parallel to lame-duck US Presidencies, which are rarely successful, with added definition issues to make it messier. An English Parliament creates a fresh layer of politicians, and IMO is unlikely to go down well when people think that through.
It'll be interesting to see what the polls do over the next few days, and a Scottish poll for the GE would be especially intriguing.
The lesson of these referenda is that constitutional changes must be thought through and have some sort of non partisan backing. The Tory triumphalism on here is wholly detatched from that reality.
Losers; Ed Miliband, Alistair Darling, Dougie Alexander
Sure, Alex Salmond is a flawed character, but I doubt whether anyone would have done so well. It is an amazing achievement to have got a referendum in the first place, and to have got so close to winning it. And clearly, Salmond has only been enormously beneficial for Scotland. When he goes, for sure the SNP will miss him.
No ran a poor campaign, and Alistair Darling and Douglas Alexander must share some of the blame.
David Cameron played this just right. I think his call over permitting the referendum was correct, and his call that the question be on independence alone was also correct.
JK Rowling is the only celebrity that impressed me. She engaged with the issue and she made a thoughtful contribution to the debate, explaining what had led her to her decision. She made a very better case for No than any of the politicians.
Ed Miliband had all the shortcomings that I feared. The Labour Party would be better off with pretty much anyone else, certainly Jim Murphy.
But, The AngrySalmond twitter feed is the only thing about the referendum I will really miss.
Latest Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1), Con 32 (-2), LD 9 (=), UKIP 15 (+2), Oth 8 (=). Tables here: http://popu.lu/s_vi140919
Miliband: "this was a vote for change. Change doesn’t end today, change begins today"
I'm reminded of Jim Hacker for some reason....
Good...they should be scared.
He may have many failings but political tactics is not normally one of them.
Camp Miliband are in serious trouble.
The situation, especially with DevoMax coming for Scotland, is absolutely indefensible.
Allegra Stratton@BBCAllegra·28 secs
Miliband finished and nothing on Cameron's English votes for laws... John Denham wanted Miliband to rise to the moment on this.
Yes = 1,617,989
No = 2,001,926
Turnout = 3,619,915
3619915 x 100 /4283392 = 84.51047674%
I think they should be included, because the spoilers did turn out.
At the moment the tories have an opportunity to re-establish themselves in these areas but it is only an opportunity and they still need to grab it. This means mining the BT database effectively and persuading those who became activists in this area that their work is not finished. It won't be easy because the tory party is starting from such an incredibly low base but it is possible.
I'll have to ask Mike or TSE for a decision on that.
Provide an English Parliament with 530MP's (the same as now) and create a Fed UK with two houses and a collective total of say 300 or 400 representatives and scrap the current Houses of Commons and Lords.
So at most you have 900 representatives whereas the current arrangement is 650 MPs plus 828 peers gives you a total of 1482 politicians. 1482 less 900 is saving of 582 people (682 if you go for 300 in the Fed UK Houses)
More democracy, less politicians and likely less cost. Job done!
Yes = 1,617,989
No = 2,001,926
N/A 3,429
Turnout = 3,623,334
3623344 x 100 /4283392 = 84.59053012%
"Turnout
The number of electors who voted in the region. This includes those who spoilt their ballot paper either intentionally or accidentally. It does not include postal voters whose vote was rejected because they could not prove their identity."
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/referendums/help
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyaJ8eR9tzw
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/referendums/help
'Roughly half of any population is below average intelligence. Thus the no vote. When you factor in all the Poles who were allowed to vote who didn't want to lose the dole, you can why the outcome. Shame for Scotland.'
'I see this as nothing more than a win for bullies and English diospora. My heart is with the true scots who have been let down, again'
The obvious thing to do is to be bolder than the Tories to put them on the defensive. Come up with a plan that involves dissolving the current House of Lords to ensure you don't have a net increase in politicians and you can put the Tories onto the defensive.
In the current political mood you have to avoid being in the position of defending the status quo - it ended up not being an option in the referendum with the choice between independence and further devolution.
So that's a definite 84.59% then?
Labour had to resuscitate Brown to do Miliband's job.
And still YES won in Glasgow, Dundee etc etc.
Ed is crap is PM
http://t.co/XMl2ly3p8K
I may be incorrectly transposing the BBC's "Rejected Ballots" into Spoilt Ballots. If those rejected ballots were postal voters whose vote was rejected because they could not prove their identity, then they would not be included in the turnout.
I will get back to a.s.a.p
As to YES I went with 51.0%! So that was, erm...., a bit shite.
Miliband's performance during the Scottish campaign has been utterly dismal.
Perhaps he was referring to his fellow 'Yes' cheerleaders.
You are right. It was an astonishing experience and a dramatic outcome for democracy. If only politicians talked about what people really care about more often!
Nick P seems to think a lot of people don't care but the Barnett 'bribe' in particular rather than the extra powers has gone down very badly with people I've been talking to at work (in Oxfordshire)
There's no reason you cannot do both.
The concept of a progressive majority isn't talked about much nowadays. If anything the opinion polls have almost a right wing majority.
Not a bad outcome then? :^O
No surprise that the first 'region' they wanted to set an assembly for was the North East...