...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 don't think you can postulate an electoral alliance on the assumption that each party's poll share would remain unaltered in contemplation of it.
If it were apparent that the Tories and UKIP were a potential alliance, it would lower the Tory vote.
This applies just as much to each party in this case. UKIP is for people who think it's the 1950s Tory party they want. If told that a vote for UKIP amounts to a vote for the 2014 Tory Party, many won't vote UKIP. Likewise, if the Tories re-embrace UKIP via alliance having spent 20 years trying to disassociate themselves from its views they will leak support too.
...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
Lol
Indeed, the last thing Labour want is PR. Or the Conservatives for that matter.
...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 don't think you can postulate an electoral alliance on the assumption that each party's poll share would remain unaltered in contemplation of it.
If it were apparent that the Tories and UKIP were a potential alliance, it would lower the Tory vote.
This applies just as much to each party in this case. UKIP is for people who think it's the 1950s Tory party they want. If told that a vote for UKIP amounts to a vote for the 2014 Tory Party, many won't vote UKIP. Likewise, if the Tories re-embrace UKIP via alliance having spent 20 years trying to disassociate themselves from its views they will leak support too.
I fully agree the opinion polls might alter a lot, but the fear of it is real.
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
England is not going to get its own parliament but if it did, it is more likely the Conservatives who would be locked out.
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!
...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.
That supposes that the current parties wouldn't realign. Which would be an inevitable consequence of PR, and in my view essentially a good thing that would allow a more disparate and representative set of voices to be heard. Whipping would be weakened and MP's would be more responsive to their electorates.
...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 don't think you can postulate an electoral alliance on the assumption that each party's poll share would remain unaltered in contemplation of it.
If it were apparent that the Tories and UKIP were a potential alliance, it would lower the Tory vote.
This applies just as much to each party in this case. UKIP is for people who think it's the 1950s Tory party they want. If told that a vote for UKIP amounts to a vote for the 2014 Tory Party, many won't vote UKIP. Likewise, if the Tories re-embrace UKIP via alliance having spent 20 years trying to disassociate themselves from its views they will leak support too.
Given it was the Libdems vote that collapsed I think it is UKIP who should avoid the Toxic Tories!
Lots of other sites, including Wiki are referring to the 3,429 figure as invalid or blank votes, which makes me feel they must be spoilt ballots. I was initially concerned that it is a rather low percentage, but the ballot paper was simple as can be and therefore difficult to get wrong by accident.
Update
The official result site says 84.6% which is 84.59% rounded up
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.
With EVEL, he won't be accused so often of bunking off Westminster when it comes in.
Is he still an MP?
He's still Prime Minister. Didn't you see him on telly promising Scotland more powers and money from the English?
After 4 years holed up in his Kirkaldy bunker, he doubtless thinks he still is PM. A similar example would be the Japanese soldiers who refused to surrender for years after 1945, unable to believe that the war was over.
...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.
That supposes that the current parties wouldn't realign. Which would be an inevitable consequence of PR, and in my view essentially a good thing that would allow a more disparate and representative set of voices to be heard. Whipping would be weakened and MP's would be more responsive to their electorates.
It might well be a good thing for us, but it certainly wouldn't for Labour which is what they spend 90% of their time worrying about.
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..
Instead if the United Kingdom think more of the English Empire with self governing colonies on the borders of the mother country. The Empire parliament is Westminster; joint matters can be dealt with via joint committees with the devolved institutions.
Actually I hate what has happened and EV4EL will make the country ungovernable sooner rather than later. Grandiose, piecemeal, self-serving devolution has been the cause of all this grief. We really would be better to go back to the pre-1997 arrangements and work on a vigourous renewal of local government.
With EVEL, he won't be accused so often of bunking off Westminster when it comes in.
Is he still an MP?
He's still Prime Minister. Didn't you see him on telly promising Scotland more powers and money from the English?
There's no way he offered anything without the assent of the Bullingdon Pimpernel, a mystery genius who was not seen during the campaign, but who many on here are now laughably but predictably rewriting as the true architect of the day's great victory.
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!
More party control and less democracy.
No thanks.
Where do you get that from? No one has actually talked about Parties which as far as I am concerned is a completely separate issue which as Doug Carswell would suggest is resolved by abolishing the whip and reforming the party stuctures and practises. It has absolutely no intrinsic relationship with the form and structure of our government and democracy. its a problem with the parties not the type of governmental structure.
And how you come up with less democracy when you are getting rid of over 800 appointees and increasing the number of elected representatives by 200 to 300 is beyond me. You are being irrational about this which I am surprised at.
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.
If devolved issues can be settled in a Grand Committee of the Commons, then we can abolish the Scottish Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments - whats good for one has to be good for all.
At the moment we elect MPs to sit at a UK parliament. All are equal under law and to maintain democratic sanity all must continue to remain equal. We already have it that not all laws affect all constituencies - should Welsh or South Western MPs be barred from voting on the HS2 bill when it comes out? Or on bills to create elected Mayors in cities only to be voted on by the MPs for that city? How about issued devolved to the London Assembley?
I agree that the status quo is stupid. But replacing stupid with also stupid is, well, stupid. A parliament where all MPs are elected equal but some are more equal than others - its political Animal Farm.
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.
...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.
That supposes that the current parties wouldn't realign. Which would be an inevitable consequence of PR, and in my view essentially a good thing that would allow a more disparate and representative set of voices to be heard. Whipping would be weakened and MP's would be more responsive to their electorates.
How would whipping be weakened? In a PR system the most important thing is to be top of your party's list, which means towing the line
Four hours sleep, knackered but over the moon. Being hopelessly wrong has never felt so good. God bless Scotland and the Scots. And sincere commiserations to all those on here - posters and lurkers - who wished for a Yes. I may have disagreed with you fundamentally, but I never doubted your sincerity. You will feel as bad today as I would have done if the result had been reversed. And I would have felt sick to the pit of my stomach. I hope the pain fades soon enough and that you return to the fray as determined as ever to hold all our political leaders to the maximum account. The Union has been a great thing and still can be - if our leaders to the occasion.
And there's a problem straight away. It is undoubtedly the case that with the extra powers that the Scottish parliament is rightly going to get there needs to be balancing measures for England. The logic of EV4EL is inarguable. But the devil is going to be in the detail. Nigel Farage is right - we need a constitutional convention to sort this out so that we get a final settlement that has cross-party support. The alternative is a dog's dinner, imposed for narrow party interest that will continually be revised depending on who is in power. That way lies ever-greater disconnect between voters and those who represent them.
I have always been a supporter of PR and if the argument is that the views of English voters have to be properly represented when decisions about England only issues are being made, then I cannot see how there can be any argument against it. After all, EV4EL is not about choosing a government - it is about ensuring that whoever is in government only passes legislation that affects England if they can persuade those representing the majority of English voters that it should pass. In other words, it is a blocking mechanism.
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!
More party control and less democracy.
No thanks.
Where do you get that from? No one has actually talked about Parties which as far as I am concerned is a completely separate issue which as Doug Carswell would suggest is resolved by abolishing the whip and reforming the party stuctures and practises. It has absolutely no intrinsic relationship with the form and structure of our government and democracy. its a problem with the parties not the type of governmental structure.
And how you come up with less democracy when you are getting rid of over 800 appointees and increasing the number of elected representatives by 200 to 300 is beyond me. You are being irrational about this which I am surprised at.
If you are suggesting abolishing the whips system and having all votes in Parliament as free votes then you are not just echoing Carswell but myself as I have been a lone voice for this on this site for the last decade or so.
But do you not consider that as incompatible with PR?
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.
Sorry, fell asleep...
We Dougie was on the radio early on last night. His pitch was quite interesting.
He said in addition to voters feeling the economy wasn't working for them (sic), they also felt politics wasn't working for them, and Labour needed to address that
Which is fine, except as Dan Hodges points out, Dougie is a Scottish MP for a Scottish seat, and so now needs to STFU while the English sort out EV4EL
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!
More party control and less democracy.
No thanks.
Where do you get that from? No one has actually talked about Parties which as far as I am concerned is a completely separate issue which as Doug Carswell would suggest is resolved by abolishing the whip and reforming the party stuctures and practises. It has absolutely no intrinsic relationship with the form and structure of our government and democracy. its a problem with the parties not the type of governmental structure.
And how you come up with less democracy when you are getting rid of over 800 appointees and increasing the number of elected representatives by 200 to 300 is beyond me. You are being irrational about this which I am surprised at.
If you are suggesting abolishing the whips system and having all votes in Parliament as free votes then you are not just echoing Carswell but myself as I have been a lone voice for this on this site for the last decade or so.
But do you not consider that as incompatible with PR?
I don't disagree in essence.
I believe restricting the whip to a specific small number of uses by each party during each parliament (abolishing it for everything may not be in the national interest and a compromise may be needed) and therefore making party leadership pick and choose their three line whips very carefully is the way forward.
I would also want FPTP in the English Parliament and would prefer FPTP for all houses but if a compromise has to be made then PR in one of the Fed UK houses would be the compromise. As the HoL is appointed and largely whipped what I would propose has surely got to be better and certainly no worse than the current heavily whipped centralised party control of today.
That said neither of those considerations are intrinsic with the structure of the government and democratic institutions and as such should not preclude an English Parliament. .
Don't understand the fuss over EV4EL. The Scottish and Welsh MPs hardly ever make a difference anyway, and as has been noted elsewhere on this thread there will always be MPs who can vote on issues that will not affect them. Should MPs from the South West be excluded from voting on HS2?
If turnout at GE2010 (65.1%) had matched the turnout in the Scottish Independence referendum (84.59%) then an extra 8.9 million people would have voted at the GE. If the politicians can offer them something worth voting for - or perhaps involve them in choosing what that should be - then there are lots of votes to be won.
Mr. Abroad, you can't force a change to the voting system on the people without a referendum. Winning an election isn't enough.
I'm not so sure: If there's a clear manifesto commitment I think that will do. There weren't any referenda about extending the voting system in the 19th century, or about giving women votes in the 20th. The Tories plan to move from populations to electorates as a basis for drawing seat boundaries, again without a referendum.
But I would expect activists, of both left and right, to throw stones in the path of proposals they dislike.
Four hours sleep, knackered but over the moon. Being hopelessly wrong has never felt so good.
Exactly this. I'd become relatively convinced that the higher the turnout the more yes votes we'd get, and that the undecideds would go "ah fuck it" and vote yes. And they didn't - fantastic.
The logic of EV4EL is inarguable. But the devil is going to be in the detail. Nigel Farage is right - we need a constitutional convention to sort this out so that we get a final settlement that has cross-party support. The alternative is a dog's dinner, imposed for narrow party interest that will continually be revised depending on who is in power. That way lies ever-greater disconnect between voters and those who represent them.
I have always been a supporter of PR and if the argument is that the views of English voters have to be properly represented when decisions about England only issues are being made, then I cannot see how there can be any argument against it. After all, EV4EL is not about choosing a government - it is about ensuring that whoever is in government only passes legislation that affects England if they can persuade those representing the majority of English voters that it should pass. In other words, it is a blocking mechanism.
Again, completely agree. I might be a leftie but first I'm a democrat, and its pointless me bemoaning the lack of democracy elsewhere when we remain wedded to a vast and bloated House of Donors and a Commons which seems lost against its revised purpose. It IS silly that Scottish MPs vote on English bills when Scottish bills don't appear. But its also silly to suggest that we elect MPs equally then give them unequal powers - thats fundamentally undemocratic, as silly as giving some MPs more than 1 vote. The problem isn't that Scottish MPs vote on English legislation, its that English legislation still appears before the UK parliament.
This is NOT a problem that can be resolved by back of envelope proposals and partisan posturing. Its way beyond all the party leaders and the parties and the issues - its what framework my grandkids will elect representatives to. Nor is the issue simply Scottish DevoMax or EV4EL or an English Parliament. Too many powers are too centralised in Westminster, and even the remaining powers sat at council level are dominated by the policies and budget slashing handcuffs issued by Westminster - again done for party political gain rather than common good.
The key thing missing in our society is civic pride. Previous generations developed their towns and communities to leave legacies for the next generation. This generation is broke, selfish and disinterested, and with so many councils now spending all their time managing their own decline and closing all the civic services built by others, its no surprise that people don't care any more.
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.
Sorry, fell asleep...
We Dougie was on the radio early on last night. His pitch was quite interesting.
He said in addition to voters feeling the economy wasn't working for them (sic), they also felt politics wasn't working for them, and Labour needed to address that
Which is fine, except as Dan Hodges points out, Dougie is a Scottish MP for a Scottish seat, and so now needs to STFU while the English sort out EV4EL
No. The paradox is that only elected MPs can change the constitutional arrangements. Cameron could call for Scottish MPs to STFU, but to be credible the call needs cross-party support. What we need is statesmanship, not the pursuit of partisan advantage. One problem is that all Parties' membership is so hollowed-out that they can't see any difference between national and partisan interests.
How very interesting it would be if Labour had to rely on their bloc of Scottish MPs to reject EV4EL. That's not going to play very well anywhere between Berwick and Penzance.
This is a good day for the Union, if not as good a day as yesterday. I say this because Salmond is devious, deceptive and a truly brilliant liar, capable of persuading even himself that black is white if the circumstances require it. In short he is an exceptionally able politician.
Sturgeon is another kettle of fish (sorry, impossible to resist). She is feisty, diligent and fierce but has few of the other skills Salmond has. The SNP will be less dangerous with her at the helm.
I also think that Salmond's achievement or lack of it should be put into some sort of context.
He held his referendum at a time there was tory led government with 1 MP in Scotland. When that government was obliged to restrict spending and promise more cuts to come. When North Sea oil is still a significant factor. When Labour is led by a north London intellectual who is at least as alien to most Scots as Cameron (who is, in fact, the more popular of the two). When he controlled the machinery of the Scottish government and had no compunction about abusing it with nonsense like the White Paper. When he had not yet been found out in respect of a number of major goodies such as the unsustainable "free" tuition fees and free prescriptions for a Scottish health service that is now teetering on the edge of crisis having overspent to cover the cracks until the referendum took place.
It was, in fact, a perfect storm for Unionism and yet he lost. Quite badly actually. There was undoubtedly some skill in manipulating some of the pieces of that storm into place but it will be very difficult to have better circumstances in which to make a bid for independence.
People continue to underestimate Cameron. I really hope that continues.
Comments
If it were apparent that the Tories and UKIP were a potential alliance, it would lower the Tory vote.
This applies just as much to each party in this case. UKIP is for people who think it's the 1950s Tory party they want. If told that a vote for UKIP amounts to a vote for the 2014 Tory Party, many won't vote UKIP. Likewise, if the Tories re-embrace UKIP via alliance having spent 20 years trying to disassociate themselves from its views they will leak support too.
Indeed, the last thing Labour want is PR. Or the Conservatives for that matter.
With EVEL, he won't be accused so often of bunking off Westminster when it comes in.
No thanks.
Lots of other sites, including Wiki are referring to the 3,429 figure as invalid or blank votes, which makes me feel they must be spoilt ballots. I was initially concerned that it is a rather low percentage, but the ballot paper was simple as can be and therefore difficult to get wrong by accident.
Update
The official result site says 84.6% which is 84.59% rounded up
http://scotlandreferendum.info/
Instead if the United Kingdom think more of the English Empire with self governing colonies on the borders of the mother country. The Empire parliament is Westminster; joint matters can be dealt with via joint committees with the devolved institutions.
Actually I hate what has happened and EV4EL will make the country ungovernable sooner rather than later. Grandiose, piecemeal, self-serving devolution has been the cause of all this grief. We really would be better to go back to the pre-1997 arrangements and work on a vigourous renewal of local government.
And how you come up with less democracy when you are getting rid of over 800 appointees and increasing the number of elected representatives by 200 to 300 is beyond me. You are being irrational about this which I am surprised at.
At the moment we elect MPs to sit at a UK parliament. All are equal under law and to maintain democratic sanity all must continue to remain equal. We already have it that not all laws affect all constituencies - should Welsh or South Western MPs be barred from voting on the HS2 bill when it comes out? Or on bills to create elected Mayors in cities only to be voted on by the MPs for that city? How about issued devolved to the London Assembley?
I agree that the status quo is stupid. But replacing stupid with also stupid is, well, stupid. A parliament where all MPs are elected equal but some are more equal than others - its political Animal Farm.
And there's a problem straight away. It is undoubtedly the case that with the extra powers that the Scottish parliament is rightly going to get there needs to be balancing measures for England. The logic of EV4EL is inarguable. But the devil is going to be in the detail. Nigel Farage is right - we need a constitutional convention to sort this out so that we get a final settlement that has cross-party support. The alternative is a dog's dinner, imposed for narrow party interest that will continually be revised depending on who is in power. That way lies ever-greater disconnect between voters and those who represent them.
I have always been a supporter of PR and if the argument is that the views of English voters have to be properly represented when decisions about England only issues are being made, then I cannot see how there can be any argument against it. After all, EV4EL is not about choosing a government - it is about ensuring that whoever is in government only passes legislation that affects England if they can persuade those representing the majority of English voters that it should pass. In other words, it is a blocking mechanism.
But do you not consider that as incompatible with PR?
We Dougie was on the radio early on last night. His pitch was quite interesting.
He said in addition to voters feeling the economy wasn't working for them (sic), they also felt politics wasn't working for them, and Labour needed to address that
Which is fine, except as Dan Hodges points out, Dougie is a Scottish MP for a Scottish seat, and so now needs to STFU while the English sort out EV4EL
I believe restricting the whip to a specific small number of uses by each party during each parliament (abolishing it for everything may not be in the national interest and a compromise may be needed) and therefore making party leadership pick and choose their three line whips very carefully is the way forward.
I would also want FPTP in the English Parliament and would prefer FPTP for all houses but if a compromise has to be made then PR in one of the Fed UK houses would be the compromise. As the HoL is appointed and largely whipped what I would propose has surely got to be better and certainly no worse than the current heavily whipped centralised party control of today.
That said neither of those considerations are intrinsic with the structure of the government and democratic institutions and as such should not preclude an English Parliament.
.
If turnout at GE2010 (65.1%) had matched the turnout in the Scottish Independence referendum (84.59%) then an extra 8.9 million people would have voted at the GE. If the politicians can offer them something worth voting for - or perhaps involve them in choosing what that should be - then there are lots of votes to be won.
But I would expect activists, of both left and right, to throw stones in the path of proposals they dislike.
This is NOT a problem that can be resolved by back of envelope proposals and partisan posturing. Its way beyond all the party leaders and the parties and the issues - its what framework my grandkids will elect representatives to. Nor is the issue simply Scottish DevoMax or EV4EL or an English Parliament. Too many powers are too centralised in Westminster, and even the remaining powers sat at council level are dominated by the policies and budget slashing handcuffs issued by Westminster - again done for party political gain rather than common good.
The key thing missing in our society is civic pride. Previous generations developed their towns and communities to leave legacies for the next generation. This generation is broke, selfish and disinterested, and with so many councils now spending all their time managing their own decline and closing all the civic services built by others, its no surprise that people don't care any more.
Sturgeon is another kettle of fish (sorry, impossible to resist). She is feisty, diligent and fierce but has few of the other skills Salmond has. The SNP will be less dangerous with her at the helm.
I also think that Salmond's achievement or lack of it should be put into some sort of context.
He held his referendum at a time there was tory led government with 1 MP in Scotland.
When that government was obliged to restrict spending and promise more cuts to come.
When North Sea oil is still a significant factor.
When Labour is led by a north London intellectual who is at least as alien to most Scots as Cameron (who is, in fact, the more popular of the two).
When he controlled the machinery of the Scottish government and had no compunction about abusing it with nonsense like the White Paper.
When he had not yet been found out in respect of a number of major goodies such as the unsustainable "free" tuition fees and free prescriptions for a Scottish health service that is now teetering on the edge of crisis having overspent to cover the cracks until the referendum took place.
It was, in fact, a perfect storm for Unionism and yet he lost. Quite badly actually. There was undoubtedly some skill in manipulating some of the pieces of that storm into place but it will be very difficult to have better circumstances in which to make a bid for independence.
People continue to underestimate Cameron. I really hope that continues.