What if Scottish MPs had been barred by a Speaker's certificate from voting on a Bill which in fact made provision on matters which in Scotland are reserved? The legislation would stand, but its political legitimacy would be gravely suspect.
But isn't that the case already, with any ruling the Speaker makes? For example he can simply disallow an amendment, or refuse a division, can he not?
For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.
If Labour blocks EV4EL and Labour and Libdems block an EU referendum, Cammo will go into the 2015 GE saying you can have both if you have a Conservative majority. What's not to like?
It only appeals to right wing frothers ?
Most people more interested in the state of the NHS and fall in living standards IMO
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
But that's what devomax is doing.
How would you "do it right"?
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.
There will be rivers of blood over the lack of, er, something to do with, ermm politicians voting about stuff and stuff.
"Labour support the Scots having more powers for Scotland, but are stopping the English having more powers for England." Even the white working class voters you lot regard as thick ignorant plebs will be able to understand that message loud and clear.
I don't think most people in England are very interested in constitutional issues. It's not something that comes up on the doorstep when canvassing - people care much more about jobs, housing, education, NHS etc etc.
I wouldn't particularly revel in the level of disengagement people have with the political process in this country, that's why we have such low turnouts these days.
As we've seen in Scotland, if you frame the debate in the right way people are actually very interested indeed in constitutional issues.
But we will not engage more people in the political process if politicians drone on about topics which people aren't interested in. People want to know why their living standards are not increasing - that is the fundamental driver of all politics at the moment IMO (Salmond presented independence as a route to greater prosperity and equality). Unless politicians come up with credible answers on this people will continue to be disillusioned and alienated from politics.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.
Don't be ridiculous. We have an entirely un-codified constitution. It could be done in a heartbeat.
Not according to parliament legal experts.
Was it all nicey nicey with the 'legal experts' for the lower house to remove the voting rights of members of the upper house? I doubt it. Nothing is legal till it's done. It doesn't matter a single jot if some constitution experts get their knickers in a flap over it -this is a non-argument. It's about political will. Ken Clarke (and Cameron) had no interest in solving this problem; so they booted into the long grass. The only reason Cameron is doing it is because his MPs are forcing his hand.
If they want to make any changes, it has been done properly and this won't happen until sometime after May 2015. Tory backbenchers can huff all they like and make the Tories look unelectable. It won't help them or their cause. The public hate a divided party and all these Tories appearing in the media having a moan, will just lead to a Labour majority.
Almost six out of 10 voters back David Cameron’s proposal to ban Scottish MPs from voting on English laws, according to an exclusive poll for The Sunday Telegraph.
Across the UK, 58 per cent approve of reforming the rules on voting rights for MPs in the House of Commons to ensure that English politicians have the final say over measures affecting England. Only 22 per cent are opposed to the plan.
The proportion of voters in favour of a rule change was the same regardless of whether they lived in England or Scotland.
The poll also found widespread support for overhauling the funding system under which Scotland receives £1,600 more per person in taxpayers’ money than England. All three main political parties promised during the referendum campaign to continue the funding arrangement, known as “the Barnett formula”.
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
But that's what devomax is doing.
How would you "do it right"?
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.
There will be rivers of blood over the lack of, er, something to do with, ermm politicians voting about stuff and stuff.
"Labour support the Scots having more powers for Scotland, but are stopping the English having more powers for England." Even the white working class voters you lot regard as thick ignorant plebs will be able to understand that message loud and clear.
"Labour want to make sure the political system is reformed to serve people properly, not rush through some Tory party political nonsense". Even the etc etc etc.....
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
But that's what devomax is doing.
How would you "do it right"?
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.
I can imagine a difficult reaction, but it is a perfectly reasonable thing to tell them(us). The Scottish powers issue has been endlessly discussed even if 'agreement' in principle is quite recent, whereas many of the solutions to the English question have no such agreement, and some other partial solutions tried out in the past were rejected by the electorate, meaning to tie these two things together is, funnily enough, reasonable in principle (better to sort out everything at once than in drips and drabs) but in practical terms simply means delaying one unacceptably, given it is not dependent on the other occurring.
ED MILIBAND was facing internal dissent over his refusal to support home rule for England last night as Labour MPs broke cover to condemn his position as untenable.
Senior figures say up to six members of Miliband’s frontbench team support reforms restricting the right of Scottish MPs to vote on English laws — and are prepared to say so publicly.
The issue now threatens to disrupt Labour’s party conference, which begins in Manchester today.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg last night launched a pincer movement to isolate the Labour leader, with Downing Street saying the prime minister believes it is “unthinkable” that the rights of the English should be ignored. And in an article for The Sunday Times, Clegg accused Labour of “ignoring” England because they have “most to lose” if Scottish MPs have their voting rights restricted
It's been a blast tonight. PB Tories at their best:
- too churlish to give Gordon Brown due credit.
- too ignorant of international law to understand the Asylum system.
- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me)
- Supplementaries pored over with undue glee without seeing the wood (poor VI for the Tories) for the trees.
Then the coup de grace - the YouGov VI poll itself.
Hilarious.
So the electorate will 'see through' the Tories self-servingly trying to end a clear constitutional injustice, but they apparently won't see through Labour just as self-servingly trying to keep it. Call me zany, but after this referendum, I think you may find the former plays better on the doorstep than the latter.
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
But that's what devomax is doing.
How would you "do it right"?
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.
There will be rivers of blood over the lack of, er, something to do with, ermm politicians voting about stuff and stuff.
"Labour support the Scots having more powers for Scotland, but are stopping the English having more powers for England." Even the white working class voters you lot regard as thick ignorant plebs will be able to understand that message loud and clear.
"Labour want to make sure the political system is reformed to serve people properly, not rush through some Tory party political nonsense". Even the etc etc etc.....
That obviously sounds like self-serving politician speak. "We can't give the English their powers yet because we're taking our time to make it better for your own good." It's a crap argument and anyone that's ever canvassed will know it won't fly on the doorstep.
The number of Labour supporters who have messaged me today to say they are now joining/supporting @theSNP is quite simply astounding.
Salmond was MARMITE to the Scottish electorate. There were those who thought he walked on water, and many others like myself, who knew his history of lies, untruths, distortions of reality and having an angry, mean temperament. Any organisation becomes a manifestation of it's leaders personality and this was certainly true in the case of the SNP.
If Salmond had not been at the forefront or even involved with the YES campaign, then there is a good chance that the vote would have been reversed. (Then again, it would probably never have started.)
But the very thought of Salmond as Leader/President/Emperor of an iScotland was too much to bear for most people. He may already have had his hands on the levers of power, but he was only to happy to stroke them rather than use them.
The result was known about 2 years ago, but the media kept talking it up, and the YESNP were so busy loudly talking to themselves and the media that nobody outside Scotland could really understand what was going on.
Sturgeon is smart and ambitious. I also suspect that it was she and her husband, Peter Morrell who suggested to Salmond that it was far, far better for him to fall on his own sword rather than go, having knives stuck in his back. I also think that there was a coup planned and that once it was explained to Salmond, he abdicated and was graciously allowed to continue until the conference. ( Unfortunately, I believe this was a mistake as just having watched the Scottish news, it looks like Salmond is continuing to play the Long Game just in case the dice fall his way, yet again.)
I consider that Sturgeon (and many MSP's) had got fed up with apologising to people for Salmond's behaviour and actions. And that she really didn't like the way the referendum was lost and why. As I mentioned in a previous comment, when Nicola is not a happy bunny, then someone will pay, painfully.
For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.
If Labour blocks EV4EL and Labour and Libdems block an EU referendum, Cammo will go into the 2015 GE saying you can have both if you have a Conservative majority. What's not to like?
They would have to explain in detail what they are proposing to achieve and the public may not be as interested as you think. They may be more interested in NHS, Schools, changes to employment rights.
Almost six out of 10 voters back David Cameron’s proposal to ban Scottish MPs from voting on English laws, according to an exclusive poll for The Sunday Telegraph.
Across the UK, 58 per cent approve of reforming the rules on voting rights for MPs in the House of Commons to ensure that English politicians have the final say over measures affecting England. Only 22 per cent are opposed to the plan.
The proportion of voters in favour of a rule change was the same regardless of whether they lived in England or Scotland.
The poll also found widespread support for overhauling the funding system under which Scotland receives £1,600 more per person in taxpayers’ money than England. All three main political parties promised during the referendum campaign to continue the funding arrangement, known as “the Barnett formula”.
God good that's a bullcrap poll of the highest, highest order. That 1,600 figure. What nonsense.
The Rightwing Establishment media are really going for it aren't they? Again.
They, via Gideon, clearly sense an opportunity. Like when they tried to use the expenses scandal to rig the boundaries in favour of the Tories. That worked out well.
But isn't that the case already, with any ruling the Speaker makes? For example he can simply disallow an amendment, or refuse a division, can he not?
No. The Speaker's ruling is indeed final and not subject to challenge (save by amendment of the Standing Orders and/or dismissal of the Speaker), as are any certificates he makes under sections 1 and 2 of the Parliament Act 1911. The Speaker, however, has no power at the present time to say which MPs may vote in a given division. He may refuse to select an amendment, but MPs always have the right to decline to give a third reading to any Bill which has not been amended in a way that they like. By contrast, if the Speaker barred Scottish MPs from voting due to an error of law, a Bill which the majority of MPs would refuse to pass, could nevertheless be passed on the basis of the views of MPs from a certain geographical area. That would be entirely unprecedented, and I rather think matters of constitutional law should be left to the courts.
For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
snip.
He cant get is pedge past the little Englander wing of his party and Tory PBers seem to think Ed will suffer at the polls for not falling for Daves ruse
It's a Gideon too-clever-by-half "Trap", he was probably cackling into his dungeon at his own genius when he came up with it.
It's a load of bollox, a complete non starter. The Tories and the rightwing Establishment media will drone on about it for a while (expect many threads and comments on PB), no votes will shift, then it will die a quiet death.
It'll be like the Tory dilemma on Europe - they will seem obsessed with a subject that most voters don't care much about. It's interesting that Farage does not seem to be falling into this trap - his call for a constitutional convention leading to a federal structure is very logical and not a million miles from Labour's position. He obviously realises that droning on about EVEL is going to bore people and lead to Anglo-Scottish antagonism at a time when we should be concentrating on healing the wounds inflicted by the referendum.
This "seeming obsessed with Europe is a negative" thing is something entirely made up by Europhiles..
People often make the mistake of assuming because people generally do not list it among their top concerns, banging on about it must not be worth anything, but of course even if not among their top concerns, most people do dislike the EU quite a lot if you bring it up with them. I think people are willing to overlook someone's general stance on the EU even if it is against their own preferences, so long as they have a strong enough policy offer elsewhere, but if you can have both, all the better.
Also I suspect the only reasons the LDs campaigned as being enthusiastically In despite knowing people hate that, is that they had no way of appearing eurosceptic in a genuine way, so better to go all in and try for the minority vote than lose that minority vote to go after something unattainable. Otherwise, they would have been presenting as 'mildly' eurosceptic.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.
Don't be ridiculous. We have an entirely un-codified constitution. It could be done in a heartbeat.
Not according to parliament legal experts.
Was it all nicey nicey with the 'legal experts' for the lower house to remove the voting rights of members of the upper house? I doubt it. Nothing is legal till it's done. It doesn't matter a single jot if some constitution experts get their knickers in a flap over it -this is a non-argument. It's about political will. Ken Clarke (and Cameron) had no interest in solving this problem; so they booted into the long grass. The only reason Cameron is doing it is because his MPs are forcing his hand.
If they want to make any changes, it has been done properly and this won't happen until sometime after May 2015. Tory backbenchers can huff all they like and make the Tories look unelectable. It won't help them or their cause. The public hate a divided party and all these Tories appearing in the media having a moan, will just lead to a Labour majority.
'Properly' -meaningless After May next year is the magic time when 'properly' kicks in is it? I never knew. No it won't Yes it will The Tory Party isn't divided over it; Labour are Baffling logic
- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me
You've got to laugh at statements like this, as Labour try to rig the system with voting for 16-17 year olds, a group their research has revealed are more likely to vote for them. Painfully transparent.
No, Nigel Farage just realises that a constitutional convention would also inevitably look at voting reform, which would likely end in PR, which benefits UKIP. Cameron doesn't want that because it doesn't benefit the Tories.
This "seeming obsessed with Europe is a negative" thing is something entirely made up by Europhiles. Every time Cameron has stood up to Europe in a big way, he has seen his poll rating go up. Every time there's an election when Europe is a bigger issue, Eurosceptics do better and Europhiles do worse. The only time talking about Europe is a negative for a politician is when they're supportive of the EU. That's why Labour ran their whole EU campaign without mentioning the EU. The Lib Dems weren't smart enough to do that, campaign as the Party of In and saw their worst ever poll rating. Face it, euroscepticism is popular. So is supporting English powers in England.
OK carry on if you like - Tories seem much keener these days to rely on anecdote and assertion rather than evidence. Europe is not a big issue - all the polls say that, and most recent ones suggest that a referendum might not produce a majority for withdrawal. After his recent experience Eurosceptics might usefully consider whether it's such a great to call a referendum in the belief that the result is a foregone conclusion - after all, when the Indyref was agreed only about 30% of Scots were "yes". By the time polling day came the figure was 45%. The same kind of swing could (and probably would) happen if there was a referendum on Europe.
LOL so despite supplementary questions LAB lead increases.
fieldwork would have been Thurs/Fri so partially reflects the Scotch vote, EV4EL won't quite have made an impact. The Labour increase is probably down to Gord's visibility. UKIP are up as well, their recent trend has been slightly downwards.
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
But that's what devomax is doing.
How would you "do it right"?
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.
There will be rivers of blood over the lack of, er, something to do with, ermm politicians voting about stuff and stuff.
"Labour support the Scots having more powers for Scotland, but are stopping the English having more powers for England." Even the white working class voters you lot regard as thick ignorant plebs will be able to understand that message loud and clear.
"Labour want to make sure the political system is reformed to serve people properly, not rush through some Tory party political nonsense". Even the etc etc etc.....
That obviously sounds like self-serving politician speak. "We can't give the English their powers yet because we're taking our time to make it better for your own good." It's a crap argument and anyone that's ever canvassed will know it won't fly on the doorstep.
"The priority of Tory politicians is to tinker with parliament to make politicians more Tory. Or something. Ours is to freeze energy prices, scrap the Bedroom Tax and sort out the Cost of Living Crisis".
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.
Don't be ridiculous. We have an entirely un-codified constitution. It could be done in a heartbeat.
Not according to parliament legal experts.
Was it all nicey nicey with the 'legal experts' for the lower house to remove the voting rights of members of the upper house? I doubt it. Nothing is legal till it's done. It doesn't matter a single jot if some constitution experts get their knickers in a flap over it -this is a non-argument. It's about political will. Ken Clarke (and Cameron) had no interest in solving this problem; so they booted into the long grass. The only reason Cameron is doing it is because his MPs are forcing his hand.
If they want to make any changes, it has been done properly and this won't happen until sometime after May 2015. Tory backbenchers can huff all they like and make the Tories look unelectable. It won't help them or their cause. The public hate a divided party and all these Tories appearing in the media having a moan, will just lead to a Labour majority.
'Properly' -meaningless After May next year is the magic time when 'properly' kicks in is it? I never knew. No it won't Yes it will The Tory Party isn't divided over it; Labour are Baffling logic
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
But that's what devomax is doing.
How would you "do it right"?
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.
There will be rivers of blood over the lack of, er, something to do with, ermm politicians voting about stuff and stuff.
"Labour support the Scots having more powers for Scotland, but are stopping the English having more powers for England." Even the white working class voters you lot regard as thick ignorant plebs will be able to understand that message loud and clear.
"Labour want to make sure the political system is reformed to serve people properly, not rush through some Tory party political nonsense". Even the etc etc etc.....
That obviously sounds like self-serving politician speak. "We can't give the English their powers yet because we're taking our time to make it better for your own good." It's a crap argument and anyone that's ever canvassed will know it won't fly on the doorstep.
The doorstep where I couldn't give a flying fook though it has much bigger issues to be worried about
- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me
You've got to laugh at statements like this, as Labour try to rig the system with voting for 16-17 year olds, a group their research has revealed are more likely to vote for them. Painfully transparent.
But Cameron sold the pass on this when he allowed 16 & 17 years olds to vote in the Indyref (much to my amazement, and I would have thought, the amazement of most Tories as well).
OT, I met a LD councillor for the first time a few weeks back, and while chatting about general matters, he stated, with apparent confidence, that Labour were finished and that within 10-15 years would be overtaken by the LDs (in percentage and parliamentary seats), despite current setbacks. I didn't have the heart to disagree with that assessment.
Regarding the WLQ and EV4EL, I think people are slightly missing the point. There are several interrelated aspects to it:
1) The WLQ is of academic interest only in the case of Conservative majority, and also in the case of a reasonable-sized Labour majority. (It's also of academic interest in this parliament because the coalition has a majority sufficient to overcome any Labour use of its block of ScotLab MPs to attempt to interfere with English-only laws). So, in terms of its practical political significance, we should focus on the edge conditions - in practice, a hung parliament or a small Labour majority, where the WLQ might make a serious difference.
2) Of course, it's not an issue on the doorstep, although I suppose it might become one if English voters are repeatedly reminded of the anomaly. Overall, though, those who say it's not a 'silver bullet' issue in itself are quite right.
3) All the same, it's not an issue that Labour can simply ignore. It may not in itself be a vote-shifter, but Labour's position is clearly and unambiguously anti-democratic. That's not a good place to be in a democracy.
4) Therefore I think Labour will have to give way on this.
5) .. which means that, going back to my first point: the real significance of this relates to a hung parliament. (If there's a small Labour majority, given how shameless they are, that's sufficient for them to gerrymander things back to the status quo). In particular, if the arithmetic works out in such a way that there is a choice, who are the LibDems going to do a deal with: a party which can deliver on both UK-wide and English-only votes, or one which even with LibDem support might not have a majority on English-only matters?
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
But that's what devomax is doing.
How would you "do it right"?
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.
There will be rivers of blood over the lack of, er, something to do with, ermm politicians voting about stuff and stuff.
"Labour support the Scots having more powers for Scotland, but are stopping the English having more powers for England." Even the white working class voters you lot regard as thick ignorant plebs will be able to understand that message loud and clear.
"Labour want to make sure the political system is reformed to serve people properly, not rush through some Tory party political nonsense". Even the etc etc etc.....
That obviously sounds like self-serving politician speak. "We can't give the English their powers yet because we're taking our time to make it better for your own good." It's a crap argument and anyone that's ever canvassed will know it won't fly on the doorstep.
The doorstep where I couldn't give a flying fook though it has much bigger issues to be worried about
Maybe its different in Tory Land
Like them getting 20% less public services than in Scotland? You don't think they're not bright enough to figure out the connection between these two things?
- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me
You've got to laugh at statements like this, as Labour try to rig the system with voting for 16-17 year olds, a group their research has revealed are more likely to vote for them. Painfully transparent.
But Cameron sold the pass on this when he allowed 16 & 17 years olds to vote in the Indyref (much to my amazement, and I would have thought, the amazement of most Tories as well).
Quite. Even as a non-Tory I disagreed with it then, and am not happy about it now as well, but that fight has been conceded. Arguments can be made about not permitting in GEs, but I don't think they are sustainable.
Almost six out of 10 voters back David Cameron’s proposal to ban Scottish MPs from voting on English laws, according to an exclusive poll for The Sunday Telegraph.
Across the UK, 58 per cent approve of reforming the rules on voting rights for MPs in the House of Commons to ensure that English politicians have the final say over measures affecting England. Only 22 per cent are opposed to the plan.
The proportion of voters in favour of a rule change was the same regardless of whether they lived in England or Scotland.
The poll also found widespread support for overhauling the funding system under which Scotland receives £1,600 more per person in taxpayers’ money than England. All three main political parties promised during the referendum campaign to continue the funding arrangement, known as “the Barnett formula”.
- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me
You've got to laugh at statements like this, as Labour try to rig the system with voting for 16-17 year olds, a group their research has revealed are more likely to vote for them. Painfully transparent.
They can have sex, pay taxes, die for the country. Surely, they can vote !
"Labour want to make sure the political system is reformed to serve people properly, not rush through some Tory party political nonsense". Even the etc etc etc.....
13 years of big or humongous Labour majorities wasn't enough to sort it out?
OT, I met a LD councillor for the first time a few weeks back, and while chatting about general matters, he stated, with apparent confidence, that Labour were finished and that within 10-15 years would be overtaken by the LDs (in percentage and parliamentary seats), despite current setbacks. I didn't have the heart to disagree with that assessment.
Actually, someone else made a similar prediction to me, and he's a Labour activist.
His theory was, this, UKIP are picking up ex Labour supporters, particularly, Northern working class ones.
If that happens, they will move to the left, old Labour style, particularly on things like immigration.
Which is going to upset the Socially liberal, middle class voters that make up a chunk of Labour.
They may move to the Lib Dems, if they're led by a left leaning Lib Demmer, who has repudiated Clegg.
- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me
You've got to laugh at statements like this, as Labour try to rig the system with voting for 16-17 year olds, a group their research has revealed are more likely to vote for them. Painfully transparent.
They can have sex, pay taxes, die for the country. Surely, they can vote !
Taxation without representation.
I had thought 16-17 year olds could join the army but were not posted to combat zones at that age?
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
But that's what devomax is doing.
How would you "do it right"?
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.
There will be rivers of blood over the lack of, er, something to do with, ermm politicians voting about stuff and stuff.
"Labour support the Scots having more powers for Scotland, but are stopping the English having more powers for England." Even the white working class voters you lot regard as thick ignorant plebs will be able to understand that message loud and clear.
"Labour want to make sure the political system is reformed to serve people properly, not rush through some Tory party political nonsense". Even the etc etc etc.....
That obviously sounds like self-serving politician speak. "We can't give the English their powers yet because we're taking our time to make it better for your own good." It's a crap argument and anyone that's ever canvassed will know it won't fly on the doorstep.
"The priority of Tory politicians is to tinker with parliament to make politicians more Tory. Or something. Ours is to freeze energy prices, scrap the Bedroom Tax and sort out the Cost of Living Crisis".
How's that work on your doorstep?
If your answer to this issue is to scream "Tories!" and move quickly on to something else, I think it's pretty clear it's a weakness for you.
Almost six out of 10 voters back David Cameron’s proposal to ban Scottish MPs from voting on English laws, according to an exclusive poll for The Sunday Telegraph.
Across the UK, 58 per cent approve of reforming the rules on voting rights for MPs in the House of Commons to ensure that English politicians have the final say over measures affecting England. Only 22 per cent are opposed to the plan.
The proportion of voters in favour of a rule change was the same regardless of whether they lived in England or Scotland.
The poll also found widespread support for overhauling the funding system under which Scotland receives £1,600 more per person in taxpayers’ money than England. All three main political parties promised during the referendum campaign to continue the funding arrangement, known as “the Barnett formula”.
Almost six out of 10 voters back David Cameron’s proposal to ban Scottish MPs from voting on English laws, according to an exclusive poll for The Sunday Telegraph.
Across the UK, 58 per cent approve of reforming the rules on voting rights for MPs in the House of Commons to ensure that English politicians have the final say over measures affecting England. Only 22 per cent are opposed to the plan.
The proportion of voters in favour of a rule change was the same regardless of whether they lived in England or Scotland.
The poll also found widespread support for overhauling the funding system under which Scotland receives £1,600 more per person in taxpayers’ money than England. All three main political parties promised during the referendum campaign to continue the funding arrangement, known as “the Barnett formula”.
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
But that's what devomax is doing.
How would you "do it right"?
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.
There will be rivers of blood over the lack of, er, something to do with, ermm politicians voting about stuff and stuff.
"Labour support the Scots having more powers for Scotland, but are stopping the English having more powers for England." Even the white working class voters you lot regard as thick ignorant plebs will be able to understand that message loud and clear.
"Labour want to make sure the political system is reformed to serve people properly, not rush through some Tory party political nonsense". Even the etc etc etc.....
That obviously sounds like self-serving politician speak. "We can't give the English their powers yet because we're taking our time to make it better for your own good." It's a crap argument and anyone that's ever canvassed will know it won't fly on the doorstep.
The doorstep where I couldn't give a flying fook though it has much bigger issues to be worried about
Maybe its different in Tory Land
Like them getting 20% less public services than in Scotland? You don't think they're not bright enough to figure out the connection between these two things?
One thing that would be really helpful would be if one of the pollsters would do a Scottish only poll after the party conferences asking about voting intention at GE15 and Holyrood 16. It would be good to find out what impact the referendum has had for the longer term.
- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me
You've got to laugh at statements like this, as Labour try to rig the system with voting for 16-17 year olds, a group their research has revealed are more likely to vote for them. Painfully transparent.
They can have sex, pay taxes, die for the country. Surely, they can vote !
Taxation without representation.
I had thought 16-17 year olds could join the army but were not posted to combat zones at that age?
You are correct Mr kle4, 18 is the minimum age for a combat zone, male or female.
By the by, there was talk of glad to be seeing the back (hopefully) of certain terms used ad infinatum during the referendum period. One I would like to see gone, from general use not just the referendum period, is mainstream media/establishment media. Some basis for it, but far far too often used even by sections of the 'mainstream' media themselves to refer to 'those sections of the mainstream media I dislike'
Regarding the WLQ and EV4EL, I think people are slightly missing the point. There are several interrelated aspects to it:
1) The WLQ is of academic interest only in the case of Conservative majority, and also in the case of a reasonable-sized Labour majority. (It's also of academic interest in this parliament because the coalition has a majority sufficient to overcome any Labour use of its block of ScotLab MPs to attempt to interfere with English-only laws). So, in terms of its practical political significance, we should focus on the edge conditions - in practice, a hung parliament or a small Labour majority, where the WLQ might make a serious difference.
2) Of course, it's not an issue on the doorstep, although I suppose it might become one if English voters are repeatedly reminded of the anomaly. Overall, though, those who say it's not a 'silver bullet' issue in itself are quite right.
3) All the same, it's not an issue that Labour can simply ignore. It may not in itself be a vote-shifter, but Labour's position is clearly and unambiguously anti-democratic. That's not a good place to be in a democracy.
4) Therefore I think Labour will have to give way on this.
5) .. which means that, going back to my first point: the real significance of this relates to a hung parliament. (If there's a small Labour majority, given how shameless they are, that's sufficient for them to gerrymander things back to the status quo). In particular, if the arithmetic works out in such a way that there is a choice, who are the LibDems going to do a deal with: a party which can deliver on both UK-wide and English-only votes, or one which even with LibDem support might not have a majority on English-only matters?
Importantly, a vote of no confidence has nothing "English" about it. Any MP can vote.
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
But that's what devomax is doing.
How would you "do it right"?
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.
There will be rivers of blood over the lack of, er, something to do with, ermm politicians voting about stuff and stuff.
"Labour support the Scots having more powers for Scotland, but are stopping the English having more powers for England." Even the white working class voters you lot regard as thick ignorant plebs will be able to understand that message loud and clear.
"Labour want to make sure the political system is reformed to serve people properly, not rush through some Tory party political nonsense". Even the etc etc etc.....
That obviously sounds like self-serving politician speak. "We can't give the English their powers yet because we're taking our time to make it better for your own good." It's a crap argument and anyone that's ever canvassed will know it won't fly on the doorstep.
"The priority of Tory politicians is to tinker with parliament to make politicians more Tory. Or something. Ours is to freeze energy prices, scrap the Bedroom Tax and sort out the Cost of Living Crisis".
How's that work on your doorstep?
If your answer to this issue is to scream "Tories!" and move quickly on to something else, I think it's pretty clear it's a weakness for you.
You were droning on about "the doorstep", immigrant muslimzzz man.
No, Nigel Farage just realises that a constitutional convention would also inevitably look at voting reform, which would likely end in PR, which benefits UKIP. Cameron doesn't want that because it doesn't benefit the Tories.
This "seeming obsessed with Europe is a negative" thing is something entirely made up by Europhiles. Every time Cameron has stood up to Europe in a big way, he has seen his poll rating go up. Every time there's an election when Europe is a bigger issue, Eurosceptics do better and Europhiles do worse. The only time talking about Europe is a negative for a politician is when they're supportive of the EU. That's why Labour ran their whole EU campaign without mentioning the EU. The Lib Dems weren't smart enough to do that, campaign as the Party of In and saw their worst ever poll rating. Face it, euroscepticism is popular. So is supporting English powers in England.
OK carry on if you like - Tories seem much keener these days to rely on anecdote and assertion rather than evidence. Europe is not a big issue - all the polls say that, and most recent ones suggest that a referendum might not produce a majority for withdrawal. After his recent experience Eurosceptics might usefully consider whether it's such a great to call a referendum in the belief that the result is a foregone conclusion - after all, when the Indyref was agreed only about 30% of Scots were "yes". By the time polling day came the figure was 45%. The same kind of swing could (and probably would) happen if there was a referendum on Europe.
Firstly, I'm not a Tory. Secondly, it's laughable that you are accusing me of relying on anecdote and assertions when I just used evidence of poll movements and election results in the very post you replied to. Thirdly, Europe is a big issue - I think it's currently sixth in the list - and it's also closely related to immigration, which is currently first or second depending on the pollster. Fourthly, I don't believe an EU referendum is a foregone conclusion, but it's pretty clear which direction the polls are likely to move in following the Clegg-Farage debates. If you ask people what relationship they actually want with Europe, it's basically trade but no political integration and limited migration. As long as we can show them that that's only possible outside the EU, we will win.
Incredibly, the lefties on here can't see it. They seem to think the English voters can be hoodwinked. No chance whatsoever! Like I said, watch those polls.
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
But that's what devomax is doing.
How would you "do it right"?
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.
Snip
"Labour support the Scots having more powers for Scotland, but are stopping the English having more powers for England." Even the white working class voters you lot regard as thick ignorant plebs will be able to understand that message loud and clear.
"Labour want to make sure the political system is reformed to serve people properly, not rush through some Tory party political nonsense". Even the etc etc etc.....
That obviously sounds like self-serving politician speak. "We can't give the English their powers yet because we're taking our time to make it better for your own good." It's a crap argument and anyone that's ever canvassed will know it won't fly on the doorstep.
"The priority of Tory politicians is to tinker with parliament to make politicians more Tory. Or something. Ours is to freeze energy prices, scrap the Bedroom Tax and sort out the Cost of Living Crisis".
How's that work on your doorstep?
If your answer to this issue is to scream "Tories!" and move quickly on to something else, I think it's pretty clear it's a weakness for you.
You were droning on about "the doorstep", immigrant muslimzzz man.
You're the one droning on with idiotic arguments, apologist for child rapists man.
OT, I met a LD councillor for the first time a few weeks back, and while chatting about general matters, he stated, with apparent confidence, that Labour were finished and that within 10-15 years would be overtaken by the LDs (in percentage and parliamentary seats), despite current setbacks. I didn't have the heart to disagree with that assessment.
Actually, someone else made a similar prediction to me, and he's a Labour activist.
His theory was, this, UKIP are picking up ex Labour supporters, particularly, Northern working class ones.
If that happens, they will move to the left, old Labour style, particularly on things like immigration.
Which is going to upset the Socially liberal, middle class voters that make up a chunk of Labour.
They may move to the Lib Dems, if they're led by a left leaning Lib Demmer, who has repudiated Clegg.
An interesting scenario to consider. I suspect peoples' stubborn loyalty/hatred of particular parties, which can stem, as we see from the LD annihilation in some areas, from very short term decisions, will prevent that from happening, among other things, but I am becoming more and more grateful to UKIP despite not being a supporter of them - at the very least they appear to be making both the big two have to fight harder for their votes in their own areas, to at least consider the possibility that if they ignore their heartlands they might be punished (almost certainly they will retain such seats even with reduced vote share, but at least some concern is raised) for it eventually.
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
ED MILIBAND was facing internal dissent over his refusal to support home rule for England last night as Labour MPs broke cover to condemn his position as untenable.
Senior figures say up to six members of Miliband’s frontbench team support reforms restricting the right of Scottish MPs to vote on English laws — and are prepared to say so publicly.
The issue now threatens to disrupt Labour’s party conference, which begins in Manchester today.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg last night launched a pincer movement to isolate the Labour leader, with Downing Street saying the prime minister believes it is “unthinkable” that the rights of the English should be ignored. And in an article for The Sunday Times, Clegg accused Labour of “ignoring” England because they have “most to lose” if Scottish MPs have their voting rights restricted
By the by, there was talk of glad to be seeing the back (hopefully) of certain terms used ad infinatum during the referendum period. One I would like to see gone, from general use not just the referendum period, is mainstream media/establishment media. Some basis for it, but far far too often used even by sections of the 'mainstream' media themselves to refer to 'those sections of the mainstream media I dislike'
- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me
You've got to laugh at statements like this, as Labour try to rig the system with voting for 16-17 year olds, a group their research has revealed are more likely to vote for them. Painfully transparent.
They can have sex, pay taxes, die for the country. Surely, they can vote !
Taxation without representation.
I had thought 16-17 year olds could join the army but were not posted to combat zones at that age?
This was pointed out several times over the last few days, but lefties aren't very good with facts. So all they're left with is "have sex" and "pay taxes". Well the taxes are a fraction of what they're getting with education, and voting responsibly takes a lot more wisdom than having sex.
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
You started posting long after Plato was here talking about being a floating voter. It's almost like you were here around the same time as that poster tim. You'd have got along well with him: he liked marginalising the stories of hundreds of children getting raped too.
Importantly, a vote of no confidence has nothing "English" about it. Any MP can vote.
That is true, insofar as it respects Her Majesty's Government as a whole, or a Minister of the Crown exercising reserved functions in Scotland or Northern Ireland. As soon as it is conceded, however, that the legislation governing education in England cannot be voted on by non-English MPs, the idea of those MPs voting to negative a motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Education would be entirely unjustifiable, especially if such a motion would be approved by a majority of English MPs.
- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me
You've got to laugh at statements like this, as Labour try to rig the system with voting for 16-17 year olds, a group their research has revealed are more likely to vote for them. Painfully transparent.
They can have sex, pay taxes, die for the country. Surely, they can vote !
Taxation without representation.
Not sure where the 'die for their country' bit comes from. Under both UK and International law it is illegal for anyone under 18 to serve in a war zone. They can join the forces at 16 biut may not be put in harms way.
Firstly, I'm not a Tory. Secondly, it's laughable that you are accusing me of relying on anecdote and assertions when I just used evidence of poll movements and election results in the very post you replied to. Thirdly, Europe is a big issue - I think it's currently sixth in the list - and it's also closely related to immigration, which is currently first or second depending on the pollster. Fourthly, I don't believe an EU referendum is a foregone conclusion, but it's pretty clear which direction the polls are likely to move in following the Clegg-Farage debates. If you ask people what relationship they actually want with Europe, it's basically trade but no political integration and limited migration. As long as we can show them that that's only possible outside the EU, we will win.
I do not believe that any UK PM will recommend withdrawal from the EU in the forseeable future and without such a recommendation a referendum on withdrawal would be lost. It isn't going to happen.
Incredibly, the lefties on here can't see it. They seem to think the English voters can be hoodwinked. No chance whatsoever! Like I said, watch those polls.
Well voters demonstrably can be hoodwinked of course. Happens all the time. That said, I do think this issue has finally found some traction with the english population and will prove more a factor than previously.
I think the Tories are clearer on what solution they want, but Labour do seem to know that something should be done, they are just less clear on what they want (eg which benefits them the most), and how much it matters will come down to:
a) how much people will care about this in May 2015?
b) whether the Tories are successful in painting Labour wanting to delay matters as solely down to partisan political reasoning (whereas I think it is both a reasonable suggestion not to tie a solution to the resolution of the Scottish issue as it will delay matters, and, yes, for partisan political reasons); and
c) whether the Tories, in attempting to position themselves as the champions of unionist equality, focus too much on England and undermine potential gains/stability in Scotland (well it cannot get much lower, so there must be some potential for improvement) and Wales and so gain nothing from it.
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
You started posting long after Plato was here talking about being a floating voter. It's almost like you were here around the same time as that poster tim. You'd have got along well with him: he liked marginalising the stories of hundreds of children getting raped too.
Hah.
Long time lurker.
Anyway, off now. Sleep well, and remember, they say you're never more than 6 foot from A MUSLIM or A BROWNISH IMMIGRANT! ARRRRRGH!
By the by, there was talk of glad to be seeing the back (hopefully) of certain terms used ad infinatum during the referendum period. One I would like to see gone, from general use not just the referendum period, is mainstream media/establishment media. Some basis for it, but far far too often used even by sections of the 'mainstream' media themselves to refer to 'those sections of the mainstream media I dislike'
- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me
You've got to laugh at statements like this, as Labour try to rig the system with voting for 16-17 year olds, a group their research has revealed are more likely to vote for them. Painfully transparent.
They can have sex, pay taxes, die for the country. Surely, they can vote !
Taxation without representation.
I had thought 16-17 year olds could join the army but were not posted to combat zones at that age?
This was pointed out several times over the last few days, but lefties aren't very good with facts. So all they're left with is "have sex" and "pay taxes". Well the taxes are a fraction of what they're getting with education, and voting responsibly takes a lot more wisdom than having sex.
I agree, but the point has been conceded on a matter of even more importance than the make up of a 5 year parliament. A losing battle to resist it I think.
ED MILIBAND was facing internal dissent over his refusal to support home rule for England last night as Labour MPs broke cover to condemn his position as untenable.
Senior figures say up to six members of Miliband’s fron
Liberal Democrats have a higher proportion of Scot MPs than Labour !
I should think they have already factored into their considerations that that will not be true for much longer. At least they can be confident of Shetland and Orkney.
I am not sure why PBTories think Labour would come out against EV4EL. They wouldn't. I think the concept is basically fair.
What I cannot accept is that MPs elected on a National mandate will moonlight as an English MP.
There should be an English Parliament or a number of Regional Assemblies with tax raising powers.
In fact, those who support "competition in the market place" ought to support this idea. Each assembly could vary , for example, the VAT in their areas. Like Delaware has no sales taxes and attracts customers from neighbouring states to come and buy white goods. Tories could be in permanent control of the South East and have zero income tax or, indeed, if they so wish, give rebates only to millionaires !
I suggest VAT should be regional. A minimum income tax should be federal and the rest regional. Corporation tax, something similar. Of course, an equivalent amount of expenditure would have to be passed on to the Regions. They would only be able to borrow through bonds which would be regulated by the federal government.
- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me
You've got to laugh at statements like this, as Labour try to rig the system with voting for 16-17 year olds, a group their research has revealed are more likely to vote for them. Painfully transparent.
They can have sex, pay taxes, die for the country. Surely, they can vote !
Taxation without representation.
I had thought 16-17 year olds could join the army but were not posted to combat zones at that age?
This was pointed out several times over the last few days, but lefties aren't very good with facts. So all they're left with is "have sex" and "pay taxes". Well the taxes are a fraction of what they're getting with education, and voting responsibly takes a lot more wisdom than having sex.
I thought the argument for voting at 16 in the Indyref was that Scottish law doesn't set the age of majority at 18 in the same way as English, and that in Scotland you can be said to be an adult from the age of 16.
For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.
If Labour blocks EV4EL and Labour and Libdems block an EU referendum, Cammo will go into the 2015 GE saying you can have both if you have a Conservative majority. What's not to like?
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
You started posting long after Plato was here talking about being a floating voter. It's almost like you were here around the same time as that poster tim. You'd have got along well with him: he liked marginalising the stories of hundreds of children getting raped too.
Ludicrous Wirrall-based twat. Nailed by Socrates. Give it up.
The ghost of tim still terrifies the raving right !
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
You started posting long after Plato was here talking about being a floating voter. It's almost like you were here around the same time as that poster tim. You'd have got along well with him: he liked marginalising the stories of hundreds of children getting raped too.
Ludicrous Wirrall-based twat. Nailed by Socrates. Give it up.
Still feel bad don't you. That little flicker of humanity in you. We all know it.
You might have had an excuse. Almost. But Plato should be banned for life.
For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.
If Labour blocks EV4EL and Labour and Libdems block an EU referendum, Cammo will go into the 2015 GE saying you can have both if you have a Conservative majority. What's not to like?
DAVID CAMERON (He's toxic to Kippers)
So you keep saying 20 times a day. - it's very dull and will change no one's opinion on PB. ; )
I am not sure why PBTories think Labour would come out against EV4EL. They wouldn't. I think the concept is basically fair.
What I cannot accept is that MPs elected on a National mandate will moonlight as an English MP.
There should be an English Parliament or a number of Regional Assemblies with tax raising powers.
In fact, those who support "competition in the market place" ought to support this idea. Each assembly could vary , for example, the VAT in their areas. Like Delaware has no sales taxes and attracts customers from neighbouring states to come and buy white goods. Tories could be in permanent control of the South East and have zero income tax or, indeed, if they so wish, give rebates only to millionaires !
I suggest VAT should be regional. A minimum income tax should be federal and the rest regional. Corporation tax, something similar. Of course, an equivalent amount of expenditure would have to be passed on to the Regions. They would only be able to borrow through bonds which would be regulated by the federal government.
I see you are using VAT as an example. Don't you know your EU rules? VAT belongs to the EU. The UK can only use it within the confines of the bands specified. Whether it can be devolved to regions or not I do not know (I doubt its practical) but basically if for example you wanted to reduce the VAT on energy you would have to get permission from Brussels. Now I imagine they will agree to it occasionally but they are not going accept a constant procession of changes just for regions of the UK. One other thing to note. Once VAT is associated with a product or service you cannot then zero rate it. Not only that Brussels are looking to harmonize VAT including putting it on food. Consequently I doubt there is a cat's chance that would ever be devolved.
If you want proper flexible purchase taxes you'll have to leave the EU! After all they are only interfering with our tax system.......
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
You started posting long after Plato was here talking about being a floating voter. It's almost like you were here around the same time as that poster tim. You'd have got along well with him: he liked marginalising the stories of hundreds of children getting raped too.
Ludicrous Wirrall-based twat. Nailed by Socrates. Give it up.
Sean, how much money did you make on your foreign exchange dealings ?
I am not sure why PBTories think Labour would come out against EV4EL. They wouldn't. I think the concept is basically fair.
What I cannot accept is that MPs elected on a National mandate will moonlight as an English MP.
There should be an English Parliament or a number of Regional Assemblies with tax raising powers.
In fact, those who support "competition in the market place" ought to support this idea. Each assembly could vary , for example, the VAT in their areas. Like Delaware has no sales taxes and attracts customers from neighbouring states to come and buy white goods. Tories could be in permanent control of the South East and have zero income tax or, indeed, if they so wish, give rebates only to millionaires !
I suggest VAT should be regional. A minimum income tax should be federal and the rest regional. Corporation tax, something similar. Of course, an equivalent amount of expenditure would have to be passed on to the Regions. They would only be able to borrow through bonds which would be regulated by the federal government.
I see you are using VAT as an example. Don't you know your EU rules? VAT belongs to the EU. The UK can only use it within the confines of the bands specified. Whether it can be devolved to regions or not I do not know (I doubt its practical) but basically if for example you wanted to reduce the VAT on energy you would have to get permission from Brussels. Now I imagine they will agree to it occasionally but they are not going accept a constant procession of changes just for regions of the UK. One other thing to note. Once VAT is associated with a product or service you cannot then zero rate it. Not only that Brussels are looking to harmonize VAT including putting it on food. Consequently I doubt there is a cat's chance that would ever be devolved.
If you want proper flexible purchase taxes you'll have to leave the EU! After all they are only interfering with our tax system.......
I was thinking in terms of bands too. The same with income tax and corporation tax. Otherwise, they would not get any revenues !!!
For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.
If Labour blocks EV4EL and Labour and Libdems block an EU referendum, Cammo will go into the 2015 GE saying you can have both if you have a Conservative majority. What's not to like?
DAVID CAMERON (He's toxic to Kippers)
So you keep saying 20 times a day. - it's very dull and will change no one's opinion on PB. ; )
Well given I have only 364 posts after a few months on this thread your puerile gross exaggeration would seem to have missed that target somewhat. Dontcha think?
If you are going to try and put someone down use a bit of intelligence and imagination else don't bother. There are too many Tories who are crap at this game already including your so called leader.
He's a fine man that Gordon Brown,Ed's right hand man north of the border.Cameron would be wise to delegate far more Prime Ministerial duties to Gordon.
Each assembly could vary , for example, the VAT in their areas... I suggest VAT should be regional.
Article 96 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax provides:
Member States shall apply a standard rate of VAT, which shall be fixed by each Member State as a percentage of the taxable amount and which shall be the same for the supply of goods and for the supply of services.
That level may not be fixed lower than 15%. So regional VAT in principle or VAT below 15% is incompatible with European Union law, and liable to be quashed in the courts. Another reason for leaving the European Union, it might be thought.
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
You started posting long after Plato was here talking about being a floating voter. It's almost like you were here around the same time as that poster tim. You'd have got along well with him: he liked marginalising the stories of hundreds of children getting raped too.
Ludicrous Wirrall-based twat. Nailed by Socrates. Give it up.
The ghost of tim still terrifies the raving right !
Seriously? Terrifies the right? This is a little backwater of the internet, some dork with mediocre Google skills is not a position to terrify anyone, bore yes, terrify no. You need to raise your sights higher than some stay at home dad who lives off the earnings of his wife to hero worship.
I am not sure why PBTories think Labour would come out against EV4EL. They wouldn't. I think the concept is basically fair.
What I cannot accept is that MPs elected on a National mandate will moonlight as an English MP.
There should be an English Parliament or a number of Regional Assemblies with tax raising powers.
In fact, those who support "competition in the market place" ought to support this idea. Each assembly could vary , for example, the VAT in their areas. Like Delaware has no sales taxes and attracts customers from neighbouring states to come and buy white goods. Tories could be in permanent control of the South East and have zero income tax or, indeed, if they so wish, give rebates only to millionaires !
I suggest VAT should be regional. A minimum income tax should be federal and the rest regional. Corporation tax, something similar. Of course, an equivalent amount of expenditure would have to be passed on to the Regions. They would only be able to borrow through bonds which would be regulated by the federal government.
I see you are using VAT as an example. Don't you know your EU rules? VAT belongs to the EU. The UK can only use it within the confines of the bands specified. Whether it can be devolved to regions or not I do not know (I doubt its practical) but basically if for example you wanted to reduce the VAT on energy you would have to get permission from Brussels. Now I imagine they will agree to it occasionally but they are not going accept a constant procession of changes just for regions of the UK. One other thing to note. Once VAT is associated with a product or service you cannot then zero rate it. Not only that Brussels are looking to harmonize VAT including putting it on food. Consequently I doubt there is a cat's chance that would ever be devolved.
If you want proper flexible purchase taxes you'll have to leave the EU! After all they are only interfering with our tax system.......
I was thinking in terms of bands too. The same with income tax and corporation tax. Otherwise, they would not get any revenues !!!
The point is if some third party controls the bands and the rules it isn't devolution. There is sod all power being devolved!
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
You started posting long after Plato was here talking about being a floating voter. It's almost like you were here around the same time as that poster tim. You'd have got along well with him: he liked marginalising the stories of hundreds of children getting raped too.
Ludicrous Wirrall-based twat. Nailed by Socrates. Give it up.
The ghost of tim still terrifies the raving right !
Seriously? Terrifies the right? This is a little backwater of the internet, some dork with mediocre Google skills is not a position to terrify anyone, bore yes, terrify no. You need to raise your sights higher than some stay at home dad who lives off the earnings of his wife to hero worship.
The tone of your comments suggest he terrifies you too !
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
You started posting long after Plato was here talking about being a floating voter. It's almost like you were here around the same time as that poster tim. You'd have got along well with him: he liked marginalising the stories of hundreds of children getting raped too.
Ludicrous Wirrall-based twat. Nailed by Socrates. Give it up.
The ghost of tim still terrifies the raving right !
Seriously? Terrifies the right? This is a little backwater of the internet, some dork with mediocre Google skills is not a position to terrify anyone, bore yes, terrify no. You need to raise your sights higher than some stay at home dad who lives off the earnings of his wife to hero worship.
So irrelevant was he that some Tory scumbags on a little internet backwater maliciously threatened his family by revealing personal details.
Tory scumbags that are still allowed to post on a little internet backwater.
Each assembly could vary , for example, the VAT in their areas... I suggest VAT should be regional.
Article 96 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax provides:
Member States shall apply a standard rate of VAT, which shall be fixed by each Member State as a percentage of the taxable amount and which shall be the same for the supply of goods and for the supply of services.
That level may not be fixed lower than 15%. So regional VAT in principle or VAT below 15% is incompatible with European Union law, and liable to be quashed in the courts. Another reason for leaving the European Union, it might be thought.
So, it could be varied between 15% and 25% , say ? In the USA, even neighbouring counties have different rates for sales taxes. There must be some reason, otherwise why would they do it ?
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
You started posting long after Plato was here talking about being a floating voter. It's almost like you were here around the same time as that poster tim. You'd have got along well with him: he liked marginalising the stories of hundreds of children getting raped too.
Ludicrous Wirrall-based twat. Nailed by Socrates. Give it up.
The ghost of tim still terrifies the raving right !
Seriously? Terrifies the right? This is a little backwater of the internet, some dork with mediocre Google skills is not a position to terrify anyone, bore yes, terrify no. You need to raise your sights higher than some stay at home dad who lives off the earnings of his wife to hero worship.
So irrelevant was he that some Tory scumbags on a little internet backwater maliciously threatened his family by revealing personal details.
Tory scumbags that are still allowed to post on a little internet backwater.
Calm down dear, your hero was not adverse to being malicious to other posters on here, oddly mainly women, if the cowardly little runt didn't want the same tactics used against him he shouldn't have started it. When Sean T reposted his already well known details it was in direct retaliation, he couldn't stand the same abuse he was willing to hand out, the true mark of a bully and a coward.
Well given I have only 364 posts after a few months on this thread your puerile gross exaggeration would seem to have missed that target somewhat. Dontcha think?
If you are going to try and put someone down use a bit of intelligence and imagination else don't bother. There are too many Tories who are crap at this game already including your so called leader.
You are quite right, it was an exaggeration done for effect, but the substantive point is correct. You could do the UKIP cause a far greater service on PB if you argued you points, as with the VAT discussion up thread. - while you behave like a mindless idiot in the comment threads of the Mail or Telegraph you diminish yourself, and that is from someone who is very sympathetic to many UKIP policies.
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
You started posting long after Plato was here talking about being a floating voter. It's almost like you were here around the same time as that poster tim. You'd have got along well with him: he liked marginalising the stories of hundreds of children getting raped too.
Ludicrous Wirrall-based twat. Nailed by Socrates. Give it up.
The ghost of tim still terrifies the raving right !
Seriously? Terrifies the right? This is a little backwater of the internet, some dork with mediocre Google skills is not a position to terrify anyone, bore yes, terrify no. You need to raise your sights higher than some stay at home dad who lives off the earnings of his wife to hero worship.
The tone of your comments suggest he terrifies you too !
Yes I'm terrified he may overturn life as we know it, grow up, this is the internet, not some gladatorial arena. It's where generally anonymous people pass a few hours for their own amusement.
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
Ludicrous Wirrall-based twat. Nailed by Socrates. Give it up.
The ghost of tim still terrifies the raving right !
Seriously? Terrifies the right? This is a little backwater of the internet, some dork with mediocre Google skills is not a position to terrify anyone, bore yes, terrify no. You need to raise your sights higher than some stay at home dad who lives off the earnings of his wife to hero worship.
So irrelevant was he that some Tory scumbags on a little internet backwater maliciously threatened his family by revealing personal details.
Tory scumbags that are still allowed to post on a little internet backwater.
Calm down dear, your hero was not adverse to being malicious to other posters on here, oddly mainly women, if the cowardly little runt didn't want the same tactics used against him he shouldn't have started it. When Sean T reposted his already well known details it was in direct retaliation, he couldn't stand the same abuse he was willing to hand out, the true mark of a bully and a coward.
How telling.
"his already well known details"
Let's think about that for a sec, yeah?
Lefties have never felt comfortable here. We still don't, especially after certain things. It's a shame, all views should be welcome. I personally think Mike should keep a tighter ship, but there you are.
Does this directive apply to Income Tax, Corporation Tax etc. Otherwise, how can Scotland change its Income Tax rate even now by 3%
No. The clue is in the title, viz. 'on the common system of value added tax' [my emphasis]. The provisions of the Scotland Acts 1998 and 2012 are entirely consistent with the directive, as they do not affect the provisions of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which remain a reserved matter.
I don't think there is any particular topic to keep to - so waht do you think of this http://www.mc10inc.com/consumer-products/sports/hydration-sensor/ - isn't this something the NHS could use to protect old people from dehydration? Or if the skin changes PH a simple chemical marker would do.
You weren't around when PB Kinnocks jizzed themselves inside out when Dave went shopping in Morrisons.
But who can forget Cameron's "Veto"?
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Err no, most of us said it wouldn't last.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
Nah, one of the most dedicated PB Tories, Plato, even declared she'd "rejoined" the Party because of it. Couldn't even PRETEND she was a "floating voter" any more. It was THAT GOOD!
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
You started posting long after Plato was here talking about being a floating voter. It's almost like you were here around the same time as that poster tim. You'd have got along well with him: he liked marginalising the stories of hundreds of children getting raped too.
Ludicrous Wirrall-based twat. Nailed by Socrates. Give it up.
Sean, how much money did you make on your foreign exchange dealings ?
£1,050
Yeah !
Er, you asked. Actually, as I've already said, I didn't plunge into Forex, I put my capital in blah blah blah global bonds and tech shares etc. Yet it feels unreal.
I don't like this world. I may retreat into cash. Or property.
I earn money by writing thrillers and I need a very clear head to do that. Worrying about investments is sub-optimal in terms of calmness and acuity. You spend all day looking at stockmarkets. Dull.
Investment in the legal cannabis industry is paying good dividends.It could reach 10% of US GDP in a few years as the laws keep tumbling down in state after state.Maybe one day the Uk politicians will come out of their caves.In Colorado it's called "green gold". I like your writing style.It has that agitational,almost subversive and anarchic quality.You have undoubted talent as a writer.Be a shame to waste it on unimportant crap like making money.
Celebrity sex abuse tapes theft: Massive police investigation launched into stolen interview tapes.
The tapes, believed to feature accusers of Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall and other high-profile names , were snatched in a raid on a rundown property used by a company working for the Crown Prosecution Service.
Up to 50 testimonies were taken from the flat owned by a film-making firm contracted to the CPS.
Comments
Most people more interested in the state of the NHS and fall in living standards IMO
Almost six out of 10 voters back David Cameron’s proposal to ban Scottish MPs from voting on English laws, according to an exclusive poll for The Sunday Telegraph.
Across the UK, 58 per cent approve of reforming the rules on voting rights for MPs in the House of Commons to ensure that English politicians have the final say over measures affecting England. Only 22 per cent are opposed to the plan.
The proportion of voters in favour of a rule change was the same regardless of whether they lived in England or Scotland.
The poll also found widespread support for overhauling the funding system under which Scotland receives £1,600 more per person in taxpayers’ money than England. All three main political parties promised during the referendum campaign to continue the funding arrangement, known as “the Barnett formula”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11111364/Six-in-10-voters-back-Camerons-call-for-English-home-rule.html
Senior figures say up to six members of Miliband’s frontbench team support reforms restricting the right of Scottish MPs to vote on English laws — and are prepared to say so publicly.
The issue now threatens to disrupt Labour’s party conference, which begins in Manchester today.
David Cameron and Nick Clegg last night launched a pincer movement to isolate the Labour leader, with Downing Street saying the prime minister believes it is “unthinkable” that the rights of the English should be ignored. And in an article for The Sunday Times, Clegg accused Labour of “ignoring” England because they have “most to lose” if Scottish MPs have their voting rights restricted
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1462076.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_09_20
If Salmond had not been at the forefront or even involved with the YES campaign, then there is a good chance that the vote would have been reversed. (Then again, it would probably never have started.)
But the very thought of Salmond as Leader/President/Emperor of an iScotland was too much to bear for most people. He may already have had his hands on the levers of power, but he was only to happy to stroke them rather than use them.
The result was known about 2 years ago, but the media kept talking it up, and the YESNP were so busy loudly talking to themselves and the media that nobody outside Scotland could really understand what was going on.
Sturgeon is smart and ambitious. I also suspect that it was she and her husband, Peter Morrell who suggested to Salmond that it was far, far better for him to fall on his own sword rather than go, having knives stuck in his back. I also think that there was a coup planned and that once it was explained to Salmond, he abdicated and was graciously allowed to continue until the conference. ( Unfortunately, I believe this was a mistake as just having watched the Scottish news, it looks like Salmond is continuing to play the Long Game just in case the dice fall his way, yet again.)
I consider that Sturgeon (and many MSP's) had got fed up with apologising to people for Salmond's behaviour and actions. And that she really didn't like the way the referendum was lost and why. As I mentioned in a previous comment, when Nicola is not a happy bunny, then someone will pay, painfully.
The Rightwing Establishment media are really going for it aren't they? Again.
They, via Gideon, clearly sense an opportunity. Like when they tried to use the expenses scandal to rig the boundaries in favour of the Tories. That worked out well.
EV4EL is the new Rotherham
Ben Bradshaw @BenPBradshaw · 4h
"Lesson from Scotland we need devolution in England too" @ed_miliband tells @SWLabourParty reception #lab14
Also I suspect the only reasons the LDs campaigned as being enthusiastically In despite knowing people hate that, is that they had no way of appearing eurosceptic in a genuine way, so better to go all in and try for the minority vote than lose that minority vote to go after something unattainable. Otherwise, they would have been presenting as 'mildly' eurosceptic.
After May next year is the magic time when 'properly' kicks in is it? I never knew.
No it won't
Yes it will
The Tory Party isn't divided over it; Labour are
Baffling logic
It is beginning to look like 1983 reversed !
How's that work on your doorstep?
Maybe its different in Tory Land
1) The WLQ is of academic interest only in the case of Conservative majority, and also in the case of a reasonable-sized Labour majority. (It's also of academic interest in this parliament because the coalition has a majority sufficient to overcome any Labour use of its block of ScotLab MPs to attempt to interfere with English-only laws). So, in terms of its practical political significance, we should focus on the edge conditions - in practice, a hung parliament or a small Labour majority, where the WLQ might make a serious difference.
2) Of course, it's not an issue on the doorstep, although I suppose it might become one if English voters are repeatedly reminded of the anomaly. Overall, though, those who say it's not a 'silver bullet' issue in itself are quite right.
3) All the same, it's not an issue that Labour can simply ignore. It may not in itself be a vote-shifter, but Labour's position is clearly and unambiguously anti-democratic. That's not a good place to be in a democracy.
4) Therefore I think Labour will have to give way on this.
5) .. which means that, going back to my first point: the real significance of this relates to a hung parliament. (If there's a small Labour majority, given how shameless they are, that's sufficient for them to gerrymander things back to the status quo). In particular, if the arithmetic works out in such a way that there is a choice, who are the LibDems going to do a deal with: a party which can deliver on both UK-wide and English-only votes, or one which even with LibDem support might not have a majority on English-only matters?
Have any of the Rightwing Establishment media commissioned polls on that in the Sundays?
Taxation without representation.
His theory was, this, UKIP are picking up ex Labour supporters, particularly, Northern working class ones.
If that happens, they will move to the left, old Labour style, particularly on things like immigration.
Which is going to upset the Socially liberal, middle class voters that make up a chunk of Labour.
They may move to the Lib Dems, if they're led by a left leaning Lib Demmer, who has repudiated Clegg.
PB Tories thought it was Cameron's falklands moment. Kleenex had to cancel leave.
Saw off UKIP that, didn't it. Worked out well. Lol.
Whether they will, is another matter.
I remember the Kinnocks going there'll be no vote change at all, then changing their tune, agreeing with us, that it wouldn't last.
No chance whatsoever! Like I said, watch those polls.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
Really holed UKIP below the waterline that veto though hey.
I think the Tories are clearer on what solution they want, but Labour do seem to know that something should be done, they are just less clear on what they want (eg which benefits them the most), and how much it matters will come down to:
a) how much people will care about this in May 2015?
b) whether the Tories are successful in painting Labour wanting to delay matters as solely down to partisan political reasoning (whereas I think it is both a reasonable suggestion not to tie a solution to the resolution of the Scottish issue as it will delay matters, and, yes, for partisan political reasons); and
c) whether the Tories, in attempting to position themselves as the champions of unionist equality, focus too much on England and undermine potential gains/stability in Scotland (well it cannot get much lower, so there must be some potential for improvement) and Wales and so gain nothing from it.
Long time lurker.
Anyway, off now. Sleep well, and remember, they say you're never more than 6 foot from A MUSLIM or A BROWNISH IMMIGRANT! ARRRRRGH!
Good night all.
What I cannot accept is that MPs elected on a National mandate will moonlight as an English MP.
There should be an English Parliament or a number of Regional Assemblies with tax raising powers.
In fact, those who support "competition in the market place" ought to support this idea. Each assembly could vary , for example, the VAT in their areas. Like Delaware has no sales taxes and attracts customers from neighbouring states to come and buy white goods. Tories could be in permanent control of the South East and have zero income tax or, indeed, if they so wish, give rebates only to millionaires !
I suggest VAT should be regional. A minimum income tax should be federal and the rest regional. Corporation tax, something similar. Of course, an equivalent amount of expenditure would have to be passed on to the Regions. They would only be able to borrow through bonds which would be regulated by the federal government.
You might have had an excuse. Almost. But Plato should be banned for life.
But there you go.
PS I am not Tim.
If you want proper flexible purchase taxes you'll have to leave the EU! After all they are only interfering with our tax system.......
If you are going to try and put someone down use a bit of intelligence and imagination else don't bother. There are too many Tories who are crap at this game already including your so called leader.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/labour-attacks-prime-minister-constitutional-reform-proposals
Tory scumbags that are still allowed to post on a little internet backwater.
So, it could be varied between 15% and 25% , say ? In the USA, even neighbouring counties have different rates for sales taxes. There must be some reason, otherwise why would they do it ?
If you are going to try and put someone down use a bit of intelligence and imagination else don't bother. There are too many Tories who are crap at this game already including your so called leader.
You are quite right, it was an exaggeration done for effect, but the substantive point is correct. You could do the UKIP cause a far greater service on PB if you argued you points, as with the VAT discussion up thread. - while you behave like a mindless idiot in the comment threads of the Mail or Telegraph you diminish yourself, and that is from someone who is very sympathetic to many UKIP policies.
"his already well known details"
Let's think about that for a sec, yeah?
Lefties have never felt comfortable here. We still don't, especially after certain things. It's a shame, all views should be welcome. I personally think Mike should keep a tighter ship, but there you are.
What's he scared of?
I like your writing style.It has that agitational,almost subversive and anarchic quality.You have undoubted talent as a writer.Be a shame to waste it on unimportant crap like making money.
The tapes, believed to feature accusers of Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall and other high-profile names , were snatched in a raid on a rundown property used by a company working for the Crown Prosecution Service.
Up to 50 testimonies were taken from the flat owned by a film-making firm contracted to the CPS.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/celebrity-sex-abuse-tapes-theft-4297324
WTF....