Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After a challenging election the final surveys from Ipsos-M

1356

Comments

  • taffys said:

    ''WLQ has been around for decades and in practice, no-one cares. Once cooler heads prevail, I cannot see the Conservative Party running with this because in the long term it will favour Labour, and might give a short term boost to UKIP, whom CCHQ wishes to crush, not ally with.''

    Utterly delusional.

    When shadsy reappears, you can ask him for odds about which Conservative MPs or even PPCs will stand aside for UKIP.

    And EV4EL or an English parliament will favour Labour because the issues which will be devolved are mainly the ones Labour leads on.

    And CCHQ will know this.

    Exactly. Fiscal and economic policy will be decided at the UK level. EV4EL will cover issues such as health, education, transport etc.
    Explain to somebody sleep-deprived why this would help Labour? Is the idea that voters in England would prioritize devolved issues over UK-level ones when choosing an MP? Why?

    EV4EL is a blocking mechanism. Would right of centre English MPs block electorally popular England-only legislation in areas such as health, education etc introduced by a UK Labour government?
    Even if they never did, I don't see how that makes EV4EL favour Labour. All it means is that Labour would still be able to pass legislation which they would have been able to pass anyway without EV4EL

    Sure. I guess a better way of putting it is that EV4EL is not the slam dunk for the Tories that many on here seem believe that it is.

  • isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Labour now 1/14 from 1/50 for Heywood and Middleton with Hills, ukip 13/2

    1/50 Labour 10/1 UKIP was absolutely crazy

    Not much matched on Betfair ( I notice @mikeSmithson didn't apologise after he broke his neck to correct me yesterday before realising I was right.... Come on Mike be a gent, it's not all about one upmanship)



    I'm -£10/+£80 with Hills and
    +£14.25/-£60 with Betfair on that one.

    Every little helps as Tesco say.
    I managed to get £100 at 10/1 to average out my horrendous 5/2 bet with Quincel... Will be interested to see what price the other firms go, I reckon 13/2 will still be biggest price
    I told you all to get on UKIP for both by-elections ages ago. And I'm telling you again!

  • Mr. Observer, utter tosh.

    English votes for English or laws (or an English Parliament) is necessary to balance DevoMax for Scotland. You can't use DevoMax for the Scots as an excuse to bugger up the electoral system.
  • 1) Good. The Scots (And the rest of the UK) have dodged a major bullet.

    2) The YouGov panic will dominate the next few years. Idiots.

    The unionist campaign was designed to achieve a victory clear enough to end the independence question for a generation. Instead, it found itself taking support for separation to levels never seen, or anticipated. Scotland is now a divided country, after a debate that has split families and damaged friendships. The healing process will begin, but no one can claim the country is stronger for all of this. It would have been bad enough for the combination of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg to have had no impact in saving the Union — but in many ways they managed to make things worse. This weekend, all three party leaders have a lot to answer for.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    taffys said:

    ''WLQ has been around for decades and in practice, no-one cares. Once cooler heads prevail, I cannot see the Conservative Party running with this because in the long term it will favour Labour, and might give a short term boost to UKIP, whom CCHQ wishes to crush, not ally with.''

    Utterly delusional.

    When shadsy reappears, you can ask him for odds about which Conservative MPs or even PPCs will stand aside for UKIP.

    And EV4EL or an English parliament will favour Labour because the issues which will be devolved are mainly the ones Labour leads on.

    And CCHQ will know this.

    Exactly. Fiscal and economic policy will be decided at the UK level. EV4EL will cover issues such as health, education, transport etc.
    Explain to somebody sleep-deprived why this would help Labour? Is the idea that voters in England would prioritize devolved issues over UK-level ones when choosing an MP? Why?

    EV4EL is a blocking mechanism. Would right of centre English MPs block electorally popular England-only legislation in areas such as health, education etc introduced by a UK Labour government?
    Even if they never did, I don't see how that makes EV4EL favour Labour. All it means is that Labour would still be able to pass legislation which they would have been able to pass anyway without EV4EL

    Sure. I guess a better way of putting it is that EV4EL is not the slam dunk for the Tories that many on here seem believe that it is.

    It certainly isn't.

    What would b a slam dunk for the Conservatives is getting that Scottish UKIP MEP on the telly more often. What a revolting creature he was !
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    isam said:

    MikeK said:

    Going to Clapton sometime next week to give a hand to UKIP for a day. It's the least I can do. I hope the day I choose will be sunny though, my 80 year old bones can't abide a windy, wet, seaside.

    Clacton!

    We should all try to agree a day where other PB kippers can go together... Be nice for the other three parties supported to have the day off from us too
    Sorry, You're right, Clacton. I keep getting the two mixed up, maybe because I used to live in Clapton as a child.
    On the getting together bit I have to decline, as my wife insists that she too wants a day at the beach. She is not political and will be poor company with kippers. Once there she will be on the beach while I will try and do a bit of leafleting or something.
  • taffys said:

    ''WLQ has been around for decades and in practice, no-one cares. Once cooler heads prevail, I cannot see the Conservative Party running with this because in the long term it will favour Labour, and might give a short term boost to UKIP, whom CCHQ wishes to crush, not ally with.''

    Utterly delusional.

    When shadsy reappears, you can ask him for odds about which Conservative MPs or even PPCs will stand aside for UKIP.

    And EV4EL or an English parliament will favour Labour because the issues which will be devolved are mainly the ones Labour leads on.

    And CCHQ will know this.

    Exactly. Fiscal and economic policy will be decided at the UK level. EV4EL will cover issues such as health, education, transport etc.
    Explain to somebody sleep-deprived why this would help Labour? Is the idea that voters in England would prioritize devolved issues over UK-level ones when choosing an MP? Why?

    EV4EL is a blocking mechanism. Would right of centre English MPs block electorally popular England-only legislation in areas such as health, education etc introduced by a UK Labour government?
    Even if they never did, I don't see how that makes EV4EL favour Labour. All it means is that Labour would still be able to pass legislation which they would have been able to pass anyway without EV4EL

    Sure. I guess a better way of putting it is that EV4EL is not the slam dunk for the Tories that many on here seem believe that it is.

    No one is really saying that, but in a zero sum game between tories and labour EV4EL is better for the tories.
  • Neil said:

    You're mixing up two completely different arguments there. Easily done.

    And deliberately so, no doubt.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Pulpstar said:


    What would b a slam dunk for the Conservatives is getting that Scottish UKIP MEP on the telly more often. What a revolting creature he was !

    I demand a new reality TV show starring the BBC reporter from the Midlothian count (the lovely Sam) and the Scottish UKIP MEP lout. I dont know what would tie them together but it would be quality entertainment.
  • Fenman said:

    I've really never understood this need for an English Parliament. Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs could simply be asked to withdraw from the chamber during votes that solely effect England.

    And the same principle for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. If a Grand Committee of the Commons will suffice for England then why did we need parliaments elsewhere? Forget the expense of the Scottish Government, simply withdraw non-Scots MPs from the chamber for votes that solely affect Scotland.

    It sounds preposterous because it is. So in proposing a Grand Committee the Tories are telling England that our needs are inferior to those of the Welsh. That they're going to focus now on England and offer a solution that would be wholly inadequate for Scotland. Its not only partisan, its insulting to the English. We either have 4 home nations with national parliaments or we don't. Unless those of you whooping about EV4EL think England is less important than Wales or Scotland......?

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    Neil said:

    You're mixing up two completely different arguments there. Easily done.

    And deliberately so, no doubt.
    Well, yes.

  • Mr. Observer, utter tosh.

    English votes for English or laws (or an English Parliament) is necessary to balance DevoMax for Scotland. You can't use DevoMax for the Scots as an excuse to bugger up the electoral system.

    So it's not about ensuring that English voters get the legislation for England that they want? I see.

  • Scott_P said:

    The most interesting aspect of EV4EL is the executive.

    Could we have a Scottish Chancellor?

    Would the Secretary of State for Scotland (presumably a Scottish MP) still be a cabinet post?

    Indeed. And, for that matter, should the Secretary of State for [English] Education be in the UK Cabinet?

    It's a God-awful mess, no doubt about it. Thanks, Tony Blair.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012
    Pulpstar said:

    Neil said:

    There's a perfectly respectable argument against EV4EL - if the English want to control their own affairs they should do so from their own parliament and not from another country's. When one party has a majority in England and another in the UK are they going to be forever swapping from one side of the House to another as they move from discussing English issues to discussing UK ones and the relevant Government changes?

    Changing the HoL to a PR based English parliament ?

    It'd be a good use for the second chamber methinks.

    In practice the chance of this happening is... nil.
    In terms of England only issues then what does this do to the legitimacy of a Scottish PM? 'England' dominates the country. More devolution elsewhere simply exposes the dominance.
    But the devolution cat was let out of the bag by Labour years ago. There will be anomalies and we will have to live with them.

    On other issues I would simply abolish the HoL. We could then afford to have more MPs and thus create space for seperate 'revising committees' to do its work. The Chamber would not fit them all in though!
  • Mr. Observer, it's not about cocking up the electoral system for no good reason.

    Nobody linked devolution to PR. Nobody linked DevoMax to PR. But when it looks like the English might finally get an equal say you claim we need PR. We don't. English votes for English laws or an English Parliament will suffice.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Neil said:

    Pulpstar said:


    What would b a slam dunk for the Conservatives is getting that Scottish UKIP MEP on the telly more often. What a revolting creature he was !

    I demand a new reality TV show starring the BBC reporter from the Midlothian count (the lovely Sam) and the Scottish UKIP MEP lout. I dont know what would tie them together but it would be quality entertainment.
    David Coburn.

    UKIP, the party of Neil Hamilton, does attract them, doesn't it?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983


    It's a God-awful mess, no doubt about it. Thanks, Tony Blair.

    It's the voters' fault. EV4EL seems far from being the least worst solution. Thanks, David Cameron.
  • If the West Lothian Question was such a good issue for the Tories surely it would have had more impact in 2001,2005,2010....

    Also i seem to remember John Major making constitutional change a core component of the 1997 campaign, didn't factor in the end.

    See what Cameron can do with the issue I guess.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Labour now 1/14 from 1/50 for Heywood and Middleton with Hills, ukip 13/2

    1/50 Labour 10/1 UKIP was absolutely crazy

    Not much matched on Betfair ( I notice @mikeSmithson didn't apologise after he broke his neck to correct me yesterday before realising I was right.... Come on Mike be a gent, it's not all about one upmanship)



    I'm -£10/+£80 with Hills and
    +£14.25/-£60 with Betfair on that one.

    Every little helps as Tesco say.
    I managed to get £100 at 10/1 to average out my horrendous 5/2 bet with Quincel... Will be interested to see what price the other firms go, I reckon 13/2 will still be biggest price
    I told you all to get on UKIP for both by-elections ages ago. And I'm telling you again!

    Yeah but 1/10 in Clacton is a bit short
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Neil said:


    It's a God-awful mess, no doubt about it. Thanks, Tony Blair.

    It's the voters' fault. EV4EL seems far from being the least worst solution. Thanks, David Cameron.
    Thanks, Yougov
  • Scott_P said:

    The most interesting aspect of EV4EL is the executive.

    Could we have a Scottish Chancellor?

    Would the Secretary of State for Scotland (presumably a Scottish MP) still be a cabinet post?

    Indeed. And, for that matter, should the Secretary of State for [English] Education be in the UK Cabinet?

    It's a God-awful mess, no doubt about it. Thanks, Tony Blair.
    Well, it's only a god-awful mess if you try to use it as a way to shaft Labour in the UK chamber, rather than simply having a different Parliament for England.

    If you have a different election for England, with different representatives, then Ed Miliband gets to be UK PM without worrying about his majority being reliant on Scottish MPs - but that doesn't suit Tory trouble-makers does it?
  • Scott_P said:

    The most interesting aspect of EV4EL is the executive.

    Could we have a Scottish Chancellor?

    Would the Secretary of State for Scotland (presumably a Scottish MP) still be a cabinet post?

    Indeed. And, for that matter, should the Secretary of State for [English] Education be in the UK Cabinet?

    It's a God-awful mess, no doubt about it. Thanks, Tony Blair.
    Out of interest do you think devolution should be reversed?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Labour now 1/14 from 1/50 for Heywood and Middleton with Hills, ukip 13/2

    1/50 Labour 10/1 UKIP was absolutely crazy

    Not much matched on Betfair ( I notice @mikeSmithson didn't apologise after he broke his neck to correct me yesterday before realising I was right.... Come on Mike be a gent, it's not all about one upmanship)



    I'm -£10/+£80 with Hills and
    +£14.25/-£60 with Betfair on that one.

    Every little helps as Tesco say.
    I managed to get £100 at 10/1 to average out my horrendous 5/2 bet with Quincel... Will be interested to see what price the other firms go, I reckon 13/2 will still be biggest price
    I told you all to get on UKIP for both by-elections ages ago. And I'm telling you again!

    Yeah but 1/10 in Clacton is a bit short
    4-6 was nice though :)
  • If the West Lothian Question was such a good issue for the Tories surely it would have had more impact in 2001,2005,2010....

    Also i seem to remember John Major making constitutional change a core component of the 1997 campaign, didn't factor in the end.

    See what Cameron can do with the issue I guess.

    In case you hadn't noticed, there was a small matter of a vote last night which somewhat changes things?
  • manofkent2014manofkent2014 Posts: 1,543
    edited September 2014

    If the West Lothian Question was such a good issue for the Tories surely it would have had more impact in 2001,2005,2010....

    Also i seem to remember John Major making constitutional change a core component of the 1997 campaign, didn't factor in the end.

    See what Cameron can do with the issue I guess.

    You have no idea how badly or well they would have done had the issue not existed! And in any case don't forget they polled more votes in England in 2005 (it was the electoral imbalance which delivered Labour more seats) and had a solid majority in England in 2010 (with Labour polling less in Southern England outside London than the Tories did in Scotland).
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 6,621

    taffys said:

    If Ed has a Gov't that relies on Scottish MPs, well he will have a Gov't that relies on Scottish MPs...

    Completely unsustainable. Imagine Douglas Alexander on Question Time in, say, Telford. Pontificating on about a whole range of English matters that do not affect his constituents after devomax. One person from the Audience says, what the f8ck has this got to do with you mate.

    He'd need a police escort.

    But that is just the West Lothian Question and we already live with it. Unjust or not, illogical or not, no-one cares.

    That's because most people didn't understand or know about it. That has now changed.

    A local politician recently tweeted that WLQ had just come up as an issue on the doorstep.

    Having followed politics for thirty-odd years I am pretty convinced that WLQ, English votes, Barnett etc etc will all have been completed forgotten by vast majority of electorate by Xmas and we'll be back to the everyday mud slinging over NHS, crime etc etc.
    It's never going to dominate political debate, but it's a nice knobbly stick (English oak, natch) to beat Labour with when they bleat on about fairness and equality.

  • If the West Lothian Question was such a good issue for the Tories surely it would have had more impact in 2001,2005,2010....

    Also i seem to remember John Major making constitutional change a core component of the 1997 campaign, didn't factor in the end.

    See what Cameron can do with the issue I guess.

    In case you hadn't noticed, there was a small matter of a vote last night which somewhat changes things?
    The point I am making is that this issue has been around since 1999. The vote last night did not create the issue, devolution did.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534

    If the West Lothian Question was such a good issue for the Tories surely it would have had more impact in 2001,2005,2010....

    Also i seem to remember John Major making constitutional change a core component of the 1997 campaign, didn't factor in the end.

    See what Cameron can do with the issue I guess.

    Even though its been around since the devolved parliaments were set up, its pretty much been ignored until now. There are no doubt many oddities in the system that nobody notices or currently care about.

    What was in the past doesn't matter today. There is now awareness of it. There's clear common sense rationale that says that for England only matters, only English MP's should vote. And for the Tories, it screws up labour big time.

    Its the combination of those 3 points that make it such a hot issue
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Neil said:

    Pulpstar said:


    What would b a slam dunk for the Conservatives is getting that Scottish UKIP MEP on the telly more often. What a revolting creature he was !

    I demand a new reality TV show starring the BBC reporter from the Midlothian count (the lovely Sam) and the Scottish UKIP MEP lout. I dont know what would tie them together but it would be quality entertainment.
    I have some exclusive footage of that reality TV show, Neil

    http://tinyurl.com/kw7fqyn
  • If the West Lothian Question was such a good issue for the Tories surely it would have had more impact in 2001,2005,2010....

    Also i seem to remember John Major making constitutional change a core component of the 1997 campaign, didn't factor in the end.

    See what Cameron can do with the issue I guess.

    In case you hadn't noticed, there was a small matter of a vote last night which somewhat changes things?
    The point I am making is that this issue has been around since 1999. The vote last night did not create the issue, devolution did.
    Indeed, but Devomax pushes the current situation to, and beyond breaking point.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Friends! Should make a good TV series.

    David Coburn MEP ‏@DavidCoburnUKip 10m
    If this isnt reconciliation what is? Me & #SNP Jim Sillars this morning Reinforce trust for sake of the future http://twitpic.com/ebu7b7
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983

    If the West Lothian Question was such a good issue for the Tories surely it would have had more impact in 2001,2005,2010....

    Also i seem to remember John Major making constitutional change a core component of the 1997 campaign, didn't factor in the end.

    See what Cameron can do with the issue I guess.

    In case you hadn't noticed, there was a small matter of a vote last night which somewhat changes things?
    The vote changes nothing. They voted for the status quo.

  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    So this seething mass of backbencher Tory MPs who are apparently very upset about the last-minute devolution pledges- are they likely to be placated by EV4EL or similar?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Indeed, but Devomax pushes the current situation to, and beyond breaking point.

    Absolutely. Gordon Brown promised the Scots 'home rule' and Ed Miliband made a vow.

  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928
    I can only reiterate what I wrote at 6 this morning. The Union is out of intensive care butt here is little chance of being rehabilitated. Most Scots appear to think of themselves as primarily Scottish, with British merely an afterthought. The rest of the UK is starting to realise this now. The fact that the result came down to people being too afraid to leave will hardly have endeared Scotland to the English. They are quite entitled to feel that way, but increased immigration, the global elite and islamic extremism are raising big questions about identity in the UK. Britishness does not seem able to provide an answer to this The English will have to think more about their Englishness and the England they want to live in. Finally you have ondon. A global city that dominates an island over which many of its residents are plainly not very interested. If you've read Alistair Darling memoirs (more fun than you might think) he makes the point that when push came to shove, French bankers for all their faults were prepared to act for France. The national interest line could be used with them. British bankers? They could give a stuff. The future for a united Britain look bleak.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''They voted for the status quo.''

    That really is a quite astonishing comment...
  • Neil said:

    If the West Lothian Question was such a good issue for the Tories surely it would have had more impact in 2001,2005,2010....

    Also i seem to remember John Major making constitutional change a core component of the 1997 campaign, didn't factor in the end.

    See what Cameron can do with the issue I guess.

    In case you hadn't noticed, there was a small matter of a vote last night which somewhat changes things?
    The vote changes nothing. They voted for the status quo.

    Sigh... you you know what I mean Neil. You're playing clever with my statement, but the 'vote (and the consquences of the campaign as a whole)' mean the status quo certainly WONT happen.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,337

    Scott_P said:

    The most interesting aspect of EV4EL is the executive.

    Could we have a Scottish Chancellor?

    Would the Secretary of State for Scotland (presumably a Scottish MP) still be a cabinet post?

    Indeed. And, for that matter, should the Secretary of State for [English] Education be in the UK Cabinet?

    It's a God-awful mess, no doubt about it. Thanks, Tony Blair.
    Out of interest do you think devolution should be reversed?
    To be fair to Mr Blair, he inherited a deteriorating situation. From 1987 onwards Scotland was ruled by the Conservatives - a party with only 10 out of 72 or so MPs in Scotland. And that meant that its quite separate legal system was controlled by a party which relied on votes from another country. West Lothian Question with knobs on, anyone? Ironically it was Mr Blair's landslide in 1997 that resolved that issue. (This does not, of course, apply to UK-wide legislation and its Sewell consequentials.) But the abolition of devolution would bring that problem back on a huge scale, given current levels of Conservative MPs in Scotland - and LDs too.


  • Mr. Booth, do you mean 'they could not give a stuff'?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    I can only reiterate what I wrote at 6 this morning. The Union is out of intensive care butt here is little chance of being rehabilitated. Most Scots appear to think of themselves as primarily Scottish, with British merely an afterthought. The rest of the UK is starting to realise this now. The fact that the result came down to people being too afraid to leave will hardly have endeared Scotland to the English. They are quite entitled to feel that way, but increased immigration, the global elite and islamic extremism are raising big questions about identity in the UK. Britishness does not seem able to provide an answer to this The English will have to think more about their Englishness and the England they want to live in. Finally you have ondon. A global city that dominates an island over which many of its residents are plainly not very interested. If you've read Alistair Darling memoirs (more fun than you might think) he makes the point that when push came to shove, French bankers for all their faults were prepared to act for France. The national interest line could be used with them. British bankers? They could give a stuff. The future for a united Britain look bleak.

    London is far too disconnected from even areas just next to it. This is one reason why devomax for London would be such a bad idea. I think regional parliaments would be a mistake, but if you had to have them, London should be part of the South East. You wouldn't separate out Sheffield from Yorkshire.
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    edited September 2014
    I've refrained from Ed is crap debates in the past but I couldn't help noticing whereas he is passable in the HoC he really is quite ineffectual "on the stump". That's not to say he can't be PM in eight months time but his charisma by-pass will cost votes.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    I just don't see the difficulty with asymmetrical devolution, with Parliaments for Wales, Scotland and N.Ireland, and with the UK one in Westminster.

    England has so much of the wealth & population of these islands, and so much of the talent (partly from migration from the other 3 countries) that the thought of tiny Wales or N.Ireland or Scotland being able to overwhelm England by voting through laws that England disagrees with is just ridiculous.

    Welsh, Scottish and Irish MPs should abstain on matters which affect only England. If we were electing men and women of honour and integrity that would happen as a matter of course.
  • taffys said:

    ''WLQ has been around for decades and in practice, no-one cares. Once cooler heads prevail, I cannot see the Conservative Party running with this because in the long term it will favour Labour, and might give a short term boost to UKIP, whom CCHQ wishes to crush, not ally with.''

    Utterly delusional.

    When shadsy reappears, you can ask him for odds about which Conservative MPs or even PPCs will stand aside for UKIP.

    And EV4EL or an English parliament will favour Labour because the issues which will be devolved are mainly the ones Labour leads on.

    And CCHQ will know this.

    Exactly. Fiscal and economic policy will be decided at the UK level. EV4EL will cover issues such as health, education, transport etc.
    And this is an area where a principle should override narrow party interest. Even if EV4EL meant the Right never again got to control these issues (which actually I don't for a second think will be the case) then it would still be the right thing to do to press for EV4EL because the principle of elected representatives being responsible for their actions to their constituency is more important than which party then controls those issues.

    The principle behind EV4EL is surely that laws affecting England only cannot be passed without the approval of MPs whose make-up reflects the way England voted at the previous election. Thus, if the current polls are correct - it would be down to a collection of Tory, LD, Labour, UKIP and Green MPs to approve English-only legislation put forward by a government elected by the whole UK.

    I am genuinely confused about the point you are making SO. I think we are in agreement but couldn't really follow your argument there. Apologies.

    Bottom line for me is the principle of EV4EL is the right one no matter what that means politically in practice.

    My point is that if we are to have EV4EL - and I think we should - votes in Parliament need to reflect the way in which the English electorate has voted. And that means PR.
    I disagree. We are simply dealing with the principle that an MP should be responsible to his electorate fro the decisions he takes that affect them. This is not currently the case with Scots MPs at Westminster and that is what needs correcting. The mistaken desire by some for PR is another question entirely.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @WilliamJHague: PM @David_Cameron has asked me to draw up plans for a fair settlement for the rest of the UK alongside new powers for Scotland

    @WilliamJHague: Starting this work immediately today. Hope it will be possible to reach agreement. If not will be put to the British people in the election

    Is Mili really going to go into the election campaigning for his Scottish MPs to set English laws?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Neil said:

    Pulpstar said:


    What would b a slam dunk for the Conservatives is getting that Scottish UKIP MEP on the telly more often. What a revolting creature he was !

    I demand a new reality TV show starring the BBC reporter from the Midlothian count (the lovely Sam) and the Scottish UKIP MEP lout. I dont know what would tie them together but it would be quality entertainment.
    David Coburn.

    UKIP, the party of Neil Hamilton, does attract them, doesn't it?
    Don't you support the party of Nadine Dorries and Louise Mensch?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    London to host 2020 final.
  • Richard Conway ‏@richard_conway · 10 secs
    Breaking: Wembley Stadium wins the right to stage both semi-finals + the final of the Uefa Euro 2020 Championship.

    Another victory for the UK as a whole...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Norm said:

    I've refrained from Ed is crap debates in the past but I couldn't help noticing whereas he is passable in the HoC he really quite ineffectual "on the stump". That's not to say he can't be PM in eight months time but his charisma by-pass will cost votes.

    The Leader of the Labour party having to hide from Scottish voters is unprecedented; and not good news for Ed
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    edited September 2014

    Richard Conway ‏@richard_conway · 10 secs
    Breaking: Wembley Stadium wins the right to stage both semi-finals + the final of the Uefa Euro 2020 Championship.

    Another victory for the UK as a whole...

    But will Glasgow get a group?! I imagine one of Cardiff or Glasgow will but surely not both.

  • Mr. Observer, utter tosh.

    English votes for English or laws (or an English Parliament) is necessary to balance DevoMax for Scotland. You can't use DevoMax for the Scots as an excuse to bugger up the electoral system.

    So it's not about ensuring that English voters get the legislation for England that they want? I see.

    Unfortunately that has never actually been the principle behind Parliamentary democracy.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    taffys said:

    ''WLQ has been around for decades and in practice, no-one cares. Once cooler heads prevail, I cannot see the Conservative Party running with this because in the long term it will favour Labour, and might give a short term boost to UKIP, whom CCHQ wishes to crush, not ally with.''

    Utterly delusional.

    When shadsy reappears, you can ask him for odds about which Conservative MPs or even PPCs will stand aside for UKIP.

    And EV4EL or an English parliament will favour Labour because the issues which will be devolved are mainly the ones Labour leads on.

    And CCHQ will know this.

    Exactly. Fiscal and economic policy will be decided at the UK level. EV4EL will cover issues such as health, education, transport etc.
    And this is an area where a principle should override narrow party interest. Even if EV4EL meant the Right never again got to control these issues (which actually I don't for a second think will be the case) then it would still be the right thing to do to press for EV4EL because the principle of elected representatives being responsible for their actions to their constituency is more important than which party then controls those issues.

    The principle behind EV4EL is surely that laws affecting England only cannot be passed without the approval of MPs whose make-up reflects the way England voted at the previous election. Thus, if the current polls are correct - it would be down to a collection of Tory, LD, Labour, UKIP and Green MPs to approve English-only legislation put forward by a government elected by the whole UK.

    I am genuinely confused about the point you are making SO. I think we are in agreement but couldn't really follow your argument there. Apologies.

    Bottom line for me is the principle of EV4EL is the right one no matter what that means politically in practice.

    My point is that if we are to have EV4EL - and I think we should - votes in Parliament need to reflect the way in which the English electorate has voted. And that means PR.
    Only if you take a party-centric perspective of voting rather than a candidate-centric one. That's a separate debate that should be addressed separately.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    Neil said:

    If the West Lothian Question was such a good issue for the Tories surely it would have had more impact in 2001,2005,2010....

    Also i seem to remember John Major making constitutional change a core component of the 1997 campaign, didn't factor in the end.

    See what Cameron can do with the issue I guess.

    In case you hadn't noticed, there was a small matter of a vote last night which somewhat changes things?
    The vote changes nothing. They voted for the status quo.

    A very naive view if you don't mind me saying so, Mr. Neil. Constitutional change was promised by the leaders of the three main parties some weeks ago as a part of getting that No vote. So it wasn't actually a vote for the status quo, was it? Having decided on some form of constitutional change the arrangements for England have to come into that as the Prime Minister has noted.

    The view that the WLQ and the rest is something that few people care about and so can just be ignored for another few years is I am pleased to say obsolete. It has just been put front and centre by the Prime Minister. Labour can, and probably will, try to kill it as an issue but I do not think they will be able to.
  • I'm off now, but before I go, some F1 news.

    F1 bigwigs have backtracked, partially, on radio bans. Now drivers will be told when equipment that might explode if not set up correctly is not set up correctly:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/29276492

    They perhaps should've thought of that before deciding what to ban and what to permit.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Munich, Baku, St Peterburg and Rome to get QFs.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,928

    Mr. Booth, do you mean 'they could not give a stuff'?

    Yes. I really should make more of an effort to check my posts.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406
    Scott_P said:

    @WilliamJHague: PM @David_Cameron has asked me to draw up plans for a fair settlement for the rest of the UK alongside new powers for Scotland

    @WilliamJHague: Starting this work immediately today. Hope it will be possible to reach agreement. If not will be put to the British people in the election

    Is Mili really going to go into the election campaigning for his Scottish MPs to set English laws?

    Yes, of course he'll keep quiet about it but he will certainly have his Scottish MPs vote on UK issues (Of course the most important being y far the budget).

    I suspect Dougie Alexander won't abstain from another cross rail vote or equivalent post 2015 though...
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Carnyx said:



    Socrates said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    MikeK said:

    A good late morning.

    Well, there was a bit of excitement but the Scotts came to the brink, looked over the edge, were frit and decided that living on English grants and subsidies was better than independence.

    Has that Malcome feller been on and if not, will he ever be seen again?

    See the start of the previous thread for malcolmg's musings on the results.
    *Grabs popcorn and heads off to previous thread*

    So safe to say Malc's not happy then...
    At least malcomg had the good grace to show his face. People like Stuart Dickson, who had been taunting the No side again and again in recent weeks, and who had claimed they'd definitely be here after the result, have gone absolutely AWOL. I guess he's as feart as his fellow Scots thinking about going it alone...
    Oh, I'm here - and fascinated by the discussion here on EV4EL, Wales, etc., on which I will lurk, and other matters, such as the problems for SLAB and the potential for the other parties. On which someone was reckoning that SLAB would win the next election in Scotland: is that likely, with a new ILP type party perhaps developing out of the Radical Independence Consortium? Or even very possible, given the way SLAB designed the Parliament? But for now the focus is in Westminster, for a change. But I need to get on with the rest of my things to do so will be spending far less time here.



    Your name crossed my mind, but you had never been one of the taunting types so I deliberately didn't mention you!
  • taffys said:

    ''They voted for the status quo.''

    That really is a quite astonishing comment...

    This is the weird thing about referendums in Cameron Land. It's the same with his EU plan. You only get two choices, but neither is the status quo. It's change or some other change, but who knows WTF what that second one is going to turn out to mean.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Neil said:

    Munich, Baku, St Peterburg and Rome to get QFs.

    What's a QF?
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Dublin gets a group for 2020.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    Pulpstar said:

    Neil said:

    Pulpstar said:


    What would b a slam dunk for the Conservatives is getting that Scottish UKIP MEP on the telly more often. What a revolting creature he was !

    I demand a new reality TV show starring the BBC reporter from the Midlothian count (the lovely Sam) and the Scottish UKIP MEP lout. I dont know what would tie them together but it would be quality entertainment.
    I have some exclusive footage of that reality TV show, Neil

    http://tinyurl.com/kw7fqyn
    Are you sure that it isn't from a radio show. The lovely Samantha has been covering elections today, and she meet a man who lost his deposit.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Only one city left - cant be both Cardiff and Glasgow.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    I can only reiterate what I wrote at 6 this morning. The Union is out of intensive care butt here is little chance of being rehabilitated. Most Scots appear to think of themselves as primarily Scottish, with British merely an afterthought. The rest of the UK is starting to realise this now. The fact that the result came down to people being too afraid to leave will hardly have endeared Scotland to the English. They are quite entitled to feel that way, but increased immigration, the global elite and islamic extremism are raising big questions about identity in the UK. Britishness does not seem able to provide an answer to this The English will have to think more about their Englishness and the England they want to live in. Finally you have ondon. A global city that dominates an island over which many of its residents are plainly not very interested. If you've read Alistair Darling memoirs (more fun than you might think) he makes the point that when push came to shove, French bankers for all their faults were prepared to act for France. The national interest line could be used with them. British bankers? They could give a stuff. The future for a united Britain look bleak.

    You can reiterate all you like it does not make it valid. It is far from valid and based on a range of bogus suppositions. Who says they were too afraid and having jumped to that conclusion you assume we English are not endeared.
    Large parts of the country both in terms of population and area do not have a Labour MP. So what?
    Does the US President become invalid simply bacuse the college votes in the east and California elect him?

    And the Conservatives in Scotland poll just marginally behind the LDs but in terms of seats they are nowhere.

  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    It's Glasgow.

    Poor Cardiff.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @PickardJE: Tory aide defends attempt to bounce Labour into English reform: "It's only a curveball if you didn't see this was the obvious next issue."
  • Could the HoC now become a very uncomfortable place for Scottish MPs whenever issues devolved to Scotland come up?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    How nice it is for Scottish MP Douglas Alexander to say calls for a fair deal for England are "knee jerk", after he supported devolution for his own country for years. The same with Peter Hain, who says England should only get devolution via its regions.

    These people are not sitting for English seats and thus it has nothing to do with them what devolution the English people call for.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    So Dublin and Glasgow get groups and 2nd round games and London gets the SFs / Final for 2020. Should be fun. Now to see whether they all qualify.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,406

    taffys said:

    ''They voted for the status quo.''

    That really is a quite astonishing comment...

    This is the weird thing about referendums in Cameron Land. It's the same with his EU plan. You only get two choices, but neither is the status quo. It's change or some other change, but who knows WTF what that second one is going to turn out to mean.
    In fairness the AV vote was the status quo vs an even worse change.
  • PeterCPeterC Posts: 1,275
    edited September 2014
    EVFEL is fine if there is a UK-wide Tory majority: the government would certainly have an English majority as well. But there are two problematic scenarios.

    A minority Tory government may have an English majority. So it could pass English domestic legislation but may not be able to pass a budget or retain the confidence of the whole house. Equally there could be a Labour government which could command confidence and supply but be unable to pass any English domestic legislation for want of a majority.

    Politicians would quickly have to learn that to function in this new paradigm will require compromise and consensus otherwise gridlock and chaos will be the result. It's how the American system often has to operate, but do we want to have that type of setup?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Neil said:

    It's Glasgow.

    Poor Cardiff.

    @DavidRoe92: Scotland get power to host UEFA match. Wales ignored again.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704
    edited September 2014
    Isn't the easiest solution to have separate general elections to the Wales, England, Scotland, NI assemblies or parliaments by the method (PR, FPTP etc) that they select. To devolve the same powers to each national body, allowing them to work within that devolved framework.

    For UK matters set aside 3 consecutive days (or however many are needed) a month, assemble in Westminster with a body that comprises 50% Eng, 20% Scot, 15% Welsh and 15% NI (or whatever is equitable) with those members / delegates selected by the parties in the four National parliaments according to the % vote they received in the most recent general election.
  • NeilNeil Posts: 7,983
    Socrates said:


    These people are not sitting for English seats and thus it has nothing to do with them what devolution the English people call for.

    Didnt three MPs sitting for English seats cook together a plan for the further devolution to be offered to Scotland?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @gabyhinsliff: From @lordashcroft poll: fear of economic risk more persuasive than appealing to emotions (Q6) http://t.co/LEjM2InSqD Lesson for GE2015...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    Labour now 1/14 from 1/50 for Heywood and Middleton with Hills, ukip 13/2

    1/50 Labour 10/1 UKIP was absolutely crazy

    Not much matched on Betfair ( I notice @mikeSmithson didn't apologise after he broke his neck to correct me yesterday before realising I was right.... Come on Mike be a gent, it's not all about one upmanship)



    I'm -£10/+£80 with Hills and
    +£14.25/-£60 with Betfair on that one.

    Every little helps as Tesco say.
    I managed to get £100 at 10/1 to average out my horrendous 5/2 bet with Quincel... Will be interested to see what price the other firms go, I reckon 13/2 will still be biggest price
    I told you all to get on UKIP for both by-elections ages ago. And I'm telling you again!

    Yeah but 1/10 in Clacton is a bit short
    4-6 was nice though :)
    Oh yeah I forgot they were that price! Incredible really
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    edited September 2014

    taffys said:

    ''They voted for the status quo.''

    That really is a quite astonishing comment...

    This is the weird thing about referendums in Cameron Land. It's the same with his EU plan. You only get two choices, but neither is the status quo. It's change or some other change, but who knows WTF what that second one is going to turn out to mean.
    I know what these remind me of, they're like Death or Bongo.
  • Mr. Observer, it's not about cocking up the electoral system for no good reason.

    Nobody linked devolution to PR. Nobody linked DevoMax to PR. But when it looks like the English might finally get an equal say you claim we need PR. We don't. English votes for English laws or an English Parliament will suffice.

    No, I have always supported PR. If you believe that laws for England should reflect the views of the English electorate then I do not see how you can justify excluding millions of English people from that process by denying parties they voted for representation.
  • Norm said:

    I've refrained from Ed is crap debates in the past but I couldn't help noticing whereas he is passable in the HoC he really is quite ineffectual "on the stump". That's not to say he can't be PM in eight months time but his charisma by-pass will cost votes.

    I agree. I think when we get to the election campaign and Ed Miliband is on TV every single day, he will turn off enough voters that Labour's slender lead evaporates and we end up with another hung parliament. Something like this:

    Con 292 (20 to Lab, 3 to UKIP, gain 8 from LD)
    Lab 283 (20 from Con, 9 from LD, lose 2 to UKIP, 2 to SNP)
    LD 38 (9 to Lab, 8 to Con, 2 to SNP)
    UKIP 5 (3 from Con, 2 from Lab)
    Others 32 (SNP gain 4)

    Most like Tory minority and another general election in a few years
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    BBC reporting rumour from Dundee Courier that Eck 'considering his position'
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    Talking about surveys there were some truly dodgy ones published away from the main polling, one of the worst was a poll showing 46% of Scots residing in the rest of the UK were backing independence. Given not even 46% of Scots living in Scotland supported Yes together with the difficulties of finding a representative sample this was clearly nonsense.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    Thing is, the principle of EV4EL doesn't stop neatly.

    In terms of MPs voting on things that don't directly affect their constituents, that can happen for MPs in different parts of England on various matters.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Revolt on the Right (@RevoltonRight)
    19/09/2014 07:31
    Farage to write to every Scottish MP and ask them not to join/vote on English issues until constitutional debate resolved #r4today
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    I can only reiterate what I wrote at 6 this morning. The Union is out of intensive care butt here is little chance of being rehabilitated. Most Scots appear to think of themselves as primarily Scottish, with British merely an afterthought. The rest of the UK is starting to realise this now. The fact that the result came down to people being too afraid to leave will hardly have endeared Scotland to the English. They are quite entitled to feel that way, but increased immigration, the global elite and islamic extremism are raising big questions about identity in the UK. Britishness does not seem able to provide an answer to this The English will have to think more about their Englishness and the England they want to live in. Finally you have ondon. A global city that dominates an island over which many of its residents are plainly not very interested. If you've read Alistair Darling memoirs (more fun than you might think) he makes the point that when push came to shove, French bankers for all their faults were prepared to act for France. The national interest line could be used with them. British bankers? They could give a stuff. The future for a united Britain look bleak.

    You can reiterate all you like it does not make it valid. It is far from valid and based on a range of bogus suppositions. Who says they were too afraid and having jumped to that conclusion you assume we English are not endeared.
    Large parts of the country both in terms of population and area do not have a Labour MP. So what?
    Does the US President become invalid simply bacuse the college votes in the east and California elect him?

    And the Conservatives in Scotland poll just marginally behind the LDs but in terms of seats they are nowhere.


    Don't worry, we can solve all this with my patent-pending new electoral system.

    First, simply rank every constituency on how much they are "real Britain"- from good, salt-of the earth, honest UKIP voters at the top, to filthy metropolitan elitist Londoners at the bottom. I'm not exactly sure how to do this but it could probably be done with a poll of the comment section on the Telegraph.

    Next, count up all the results as usual. If one party has more than 80% of the seats, you're done. Otherwise keep removing seats from the bottom of the list until one party reaches that share.

    The downside is, of course, that some constituencies would be without representation, but the voters there would probably be too busy doing cocaine and promoting multiculturalism to care.
  • @Richard Tynall - "I disagree. We are simply dealing with the principle that an MP should be responsible to his electorate fro the decisions he takes that affect them. This is not currently the case with Scots MPs at Westminster and that is what needs correcting. The mistaken desire by some for PR is another question entirely."



    So EV4EL would actually mean that laws for England could be blocked by a party that received under 40% of the vote in England even if they are supported by parties that received over 50% of the vote. I am not sure how sustainable a situation that would be.

  • Scott_P said:

    BBC reporting rumour from Dundee Courier that Eck 'considering his position'

    This would be very good news for SLAB.
  • Mr. Observer, it's not about cocking up the electoral system for no good reason.

    Nobody linked devolution to PR. Nobody linked DevoMax to PR. But when it looks like the English might finally get an equal say you claim we need PR. We don't. English votes for English laws or an English Parliament will suffice.

    No, I have always supported PR. If you believe that laws for England should reflect the views of the English electorate then I do not see how you can justify excluding millions of English people from that process by denying parties they voted for representation.
    Er? I can't understand that. We don't have PR at the moment, so you can make the argument that at the moment, the UK parliament doesn't reflect the views of the UK electorate.

    But PR and EV4EL are mutually exclusive. You can have both, you can have neither (like now), or you can have one or the other.

    The question is would EV4EL be fairer than it is now...answer YES. Would PR be fairer than it is now..maybe. But the two aren't directly linked,and certainly not joined at the hip.
  • Out of interest do you think devolution should be reversed?

    No
  • Scott_P said:

    Norm said:

    I've refrained from Ed is crap debates in the past but I couldn't help noticing whereas he is passable in the HoC he really quite ineffectual "on the stump". That's not to say he can't be PM in eight months time but his charisma by-pass will cost votes.

    The Leader of the Labour party having to hide from Scottish voters is unprecedented; and not good news for Ed
    And the Prime Minister? All parties accepted (wrongly imo) the SNP's contention that only Scots accents could be heard. Once more they were snookered by Alex Salmond.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    They will rue the day...

    @paddypower: Familiar feeling this morning as Scotland again fail to make it out of the group.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453


    And the Prime Minister?

    More popular in Scotland than Ed
  • Mr. Observer, it's not about cocking up the electoral system for no good reason.

    Nobody linked devolution to PR. Nobody linked DevoMax to PR. But when it looks like the English might finally get an equal say you claim we need PR. We don't. English votes for English laws or an English Parliament will suffice.

    No, I have always supported PR. If you believe that laws for England should reflect the views of the English electorate then I do not see how you can justify excluding millions of English people from that process by denying parties they voted for representation.
    People do not legally vote for parties they vote for individual representatives. That is the principle we should be trying to reinforce rather than further undermine it by giving more power to the parties so they can more effectively ignore the electorate.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    20 days to go to the Clacton and Heywood by-elections. UKIP have a real chance of winning both IMO.
  • Norm said:

    I've refrained from Ed is crap debates in the past but I couldn't help noticing whereas he is passable in the HoC he really is quite ineffectual "on the stump". That's not to say he can't be PM in eight months time but his charisma by-pass will cost votes.

    I agree. I think when we get to the election campaign and Ed Miliband is on TV every single day, he will turn off enough voters that Labour's slender lead evaporates and we end up with another hung parliament. Something like this:

    Con 292 (20 to Lab, 3 to UKIP, gain 8 from LD)
    Lab 283 (20 from Con, 9 from LD, lose 2 to UKIP, 2 to SNP)
    LD 38 (9 to Lab, 8 to Con, 2 to SNP)
    UKIP 5 (3 from Con, 2 from Lab)
    Others 32 (SNP gain 4)

    Most like Tory minority and another general election in a few years

    SNP didn't gain any in 2010, surely they won't gain any now. UKIP will be lucky to get any

    LD will lose a few more, and lab will be largest party even though behind in popular vote. Just my guess!
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    PeterC said:

    EVFEL is fine if there is a UK-wide Tory majority: the government would certainly have an English majority as well. But there are two problematic scenarios.

    A minority Tory government may have an English majority. So it could pass English domestic legislation but may not be able to pass a budget or retain the confidence of the whole house. Equally there could be a Labour government which could command confidence and supply but be unable to pass any English domestic legislation for want of a majority.

    Politicians would quickly have to learn that to function in this new paradigm will require compromise and consensus otherwise gridlock and chaos will be the result. It's how the American system often has to operate, but do we want to have that type of setup?

    Mr. C. A government that could not command the confidence of the whole house would fall. How is that any different than now.

    What it would mean is that no government, of whatever stripe, is able to pass laws on devolved matters that the English people have to obey without the majority of the representatives of those English people consenting. I struggle to see a problem with that principle.

    That the likes of Hain and Alexander are already trotting out the same arguments as Labour have been using for years doesn't surprise me. I just find it rather sad.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    the Miliband position as heard from Labour loyalists is "Wegions and Wegional powers"

    I thought regional assemblies were voted down by the public under Blair ?

  • Well, it's only a god-awful mess if you try to use it as a way to shaft Labour in the UK chamber, rather than simply having a different Parliament for England.

    If you have a different election for England, with different representatives, then Ed Miliband gets to be UK PM without worrying about his majority being reliant on Scottish MPs - but that doesn't suit Tory trouble-makers does it?

    In that scenario, Ed Miliband might get to be 'UK PM' but it would be a position of relatively little power, with no say on education, health, law and order, justice, housing, and so on.

    In other words, a completely different political structure, bearing very little relation to the UK government as we know it. Such a structure would indeed be logically coherent, but it's not just Tory trouble-makers who might not be entirely enamoured of it.
  • @Richard Tynall - "I disagree. We are simply dealing with the principle that an MP should be responsible to his electorate fro the decisions he takes that affect them. This is not currently the case with Scots MPs at Westminster and that is what needs correcting. The mistaken desire by some for PR is another question entirely."

    So EV4EL would actually mean that laws for England could be blocked by a party that received under 40% of the vote in England even if they are supported by parties that received over 50% of the vote. I am not sure how sustainable a situation that would be.



    No less sustainable than the current position in the Commons. More importantly as I just replied to you in a previous post, parties do not receive votes, individual representatives do.

    If you are really worried about our elected representatives reflecting the will of the people then abolish whips and stop allowing the parties to blackmail MPs into doing their bidding rather than serving the people.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited September 2014
    Scott_P said:

    BBC reporting rumour from Dundee Courier that Eck 'considering his position'

    Tricky one for Eck. 'Free Lunches' versus 'Paying for his own curry'
This discussion has been closed.