It really, really is that simple, isn't it? Cameron made a promise to Scottish voters. If he does not keep it that will make him a liar and it will destroy the Union.
Cameron will keep the promise, and in doing so Ed will have to vote against EV4EL
So its ONLY the Tories against an English parliament. Only the Tories ruling it out, preferring a 2nd rate solution for an England they don't see as comparable to Scotland. And this is why their position is going to unravel. They've tried to go pro-England unravel the pledge set a bear trap for Labour, and the only people falling in are themselves.
That's a bit of a logical leap, to say the least. At the moment Labour (Ed anyway) are opposing any movement for England. Cameron has waffled about England and reading between the lines he seems to be proposing EV4EL but Parliaments haven't been mentioned one way or the other. Clegg I believe has proposed breaking England up into regions so the Yellow Pox are definitely opposed.
he is not now threatening to renege on the specific promise that all three leaders made to the Scots.
Neither is Dave
Well he needs to clarify that, because his statement on Friday at 7.15am suggested very much that one was conditional on the other, and all the talk from Tories over the weekend has been to confirm that. And Labour are making capital from it already, as are the SNP.
@JGForsyth: Suspect No 10 will have been pretty happy watching Miliband on Marr, English votes debate crowding out Labour message http://t.co/FokWltv4qn
Really? According the PBKinnocks this is a disaster for Dave and will end the union.
@politicshome: Shadow Bis Sec Chuka Umunna on devolution: “What you are seeing is the Prime Minster here behaving in a dishonourable way.” @JPonpolitics
I really do fear The Stupid Party is too stupid to see that this is how the nation will view it, our reaffirmed Scottish cousins particularly.
There will be riots in George Square and elsewhere if Cameron is shown to have blocked delivery of The Vow because he wanted to move the goalposts and tie it up with his entirely reasonable and correct policy on EVEL, but which was not a stated pre-condition when he signed up to the further Scottish powers.
He can certainly push EVEL on the same timetable as for Scotland's new powers, and exploit that for all it's worth against EdM, but he would be making the most fatal mistake in the modern history of the Tory Party and the Union if he sunk Scotland's new powers because he didn't get EVEL before the GE.
It is perfectly simple.
It really, really is that simple, isn't it? Cameron made a promise to Scottish voters. If he does not keep it that will make him a liar and it will destroy the Union.
And Labour will base their entire talking points on this for months and months. All Cameron needs to do is to split the two at the last minute and blow that argument out of the water.
I have to think the 'new powers' will go through to Scotland, someway, somehow. They may bumble over the line however. Surely, no front-line Politician is that moronic and block the powers going to Scotland - that would be suicide at the highest level.
Not even Ed with his 'project longrass' strategy can dodge the bullet that would be fired if no powers were transferred.
The only saving grace I see is that the Holyrood elections aren't till 2016. They have to get them through in good time for them (not the day before).
Rather a simplistic view from me there but, I feel it's a position where ultimately, it has to be that simple at the end of the day to ensure the separatist voice is cooled down.
SO He made a timetable to begin plans for constitutional reform, but England has to be a part of that too. Independence was clearly rejected by the Scots, devomax was not on the ballot paper. If devomax is going to occur then the unfairness of Scots MPs voting on English legislation while English MPs cannot do the same in Scotland has to be addressed, I do not see on what grounds you can possibly justify it?
Cameron made a promise to Scottish voters. It made no mention of EV4EL. I cannot see on what grounds he can justify breaking that promise. We will have to differ.
Is the big question on EVFEL not: Where are the LibDems?
Dave could safely split the Vow and EVFEL into two bills and pass both if Clegg and the LibDems are there. I think he'd have the Scottish, Welsh and NI votes too (plus potentially some honourable Labour rebel / marginal seat votes). Labour don't have a majority.
This whole Sindy thing for weeks - Clegg has not put his head above the parapet even once.
Yes he made a speech proposing devolving to English regions IIRC.
Important report on disability hate crime, a reminder that the use of inappropriate language,"cretin" or "nutter",for example,helps give permission for disabled people like me to be abused at will by any every local fascist.
New government of national unity agreed in Afghanistan as Abdullah Abdullah concedes defeat in presidential poll to Ashraf Ghani. Ghani becomes president while Abdullah nominates a chief executive with powers similar to a PM. Ghani's lead was cut from 13 to 3 points after the audit, so clearly he had to make concessions. Abdullah also has equal power to appoint senior positions alongside Ghani. Ghani will also sign a deal keeping 10,000 US troops in Afghanistan when most withdraw in November
That would indeed be the right message for the Tories to run with and in opposing EV4EL Labour is needlessly lining itself up to face that charge. My point is that is the Tories are now linking the clear promise Cameron made to Labour support for EV4EL they are over-reaching themselves spectacularly - not only will they more or less ensure the end of the Union, but they will also expose themselves to accusations of lying that will be heard and understood by voters in England.
What rubbish. It's just as easy to day that Labour's position of not addressing the democratic deficit will lead to the end of the union as the English get pi**ed off at being treated as second-class citizens.
Which is exactly how Labour treat them.
It's also fertile ground for UKIP and other parties. I cannot see how more powers can be given to Scotland *without* progress in England. It would be interesting to see what the Scots themselves feel about this ...
Are you seriously suggesting that the Vow Cameron signed was not binding? And that it is anything other than anti-democratic for a leader to make a specific, time-lined promise and them not to keep it?
Labour is clearly not addressing England's democratic deficit. I am not defending Labour's position - it is wrong and it is unsustainable. But I am afraid that does not let Cameron off the hook. He did not couple EV4EL to the promise he made to the Scottish people. That is just a matter of verifiable fact.
And yet you supported Labour throughout the Blair years, when the anti-democratic deficit caused by devolution was in place? How many 'vows' did Labour break, for instance on tuition fees?
People below have commented on how the Conservatives could keep the vow and heap the poison for blocking progress on the English issues onto Labour.
On a side issue, it would send a brilliant message if further devolution powers to Scotland (and Wales) were voted through by only English MPs. Regardless, it will be interesting to see if it is a free, or whipped, vote.
It really, really is that simple, isn't it? Cameron made a promise to Scottish voters. If he does not keep it that will make him a liar and it will destroy the Union.
Cameron will keep the promise, and in doing so Ed will have to vote against EV4EL
It's simple
I hope so. The Union is far too important for it to be thrown away by Dave in order to keep the Tory party together.
@MarioCreatura: EdM: "For every pound you spend you save 50p on benefits!" Marr: "But that means you're still losing 50p?" EdM: *Bemused silence* #marrshow
SO He made a timetable to begin plans for constitutional reform, but England has to be a part of that too. Independence was clearly rejected by the Scots, devomax was not on the ballot paper. If devomax is going to occur then the unfairness of Scots MPs voting on English legislation while English MPs cannot do the same in Scotland has to be addressed, I do not see on what grounds you can possibly justify it?
Cameron made a promise to Scottish voters. It made no mention of EV4EL. I cannot see on what grounds he can justify breaking that promise. We will have to differ.
What makes you think Cameron will break his promise SO? He is quite right to tie it to EV4EL. It is absurd that my MP can vote on issues affecting the M1, M5, M6 and M25 but he has no ability to vote on issues affecting the A9 which runs for almost 100 miles through his own constituency. It is not simply that English MPs cannot vote on Scottish issues. Scottish MPs cannot vote on Scottish issues and currently most Westminster constituencies represented by Labour MPs are represented by SNP MSPs at Holyrood.
It is very disengenuous to link EV4EL with the 'wow'. That is the issue at hand.
And it was massively undemocratic to give Wales and Scotland powers that England did not have. That is the issue here, and it is one that Labour needs to take care to avoid.
If it gathers currency in the media, then Labour have a big problem in the run-up to GE 2015. They created the mess, and have no desire to fix it.
Mr. Observer, Cameron isn't threatening to renege. He wants Scottish powers + a little bit of fairness for England. Miliband seems to consider a tiny of fairness for England as something horrendous.
@politicshome: Shadow Bis Sec Chuka Umunna on devolution: “What you are seeing is the Prime Minster here behaving in a dishonourable way.” @JPonpolitics
I really do fear The Stupid Party is too stupid to see that this is how the nation will view it, our reaffirmed Scottish cousins particularly.
There will be riots in George Square and elsewhere if Cameron is shown to have blocked delivery of The Vow because he wanted to move the goalposts and tie it up with his entirely reasonable and correct policy on EVEL, but which was not a stated pre-condition when he signed up to the further Scottish powers.
He can certainly push EVEL on the same timetable as for Scotland's new powers, and exploit that for all it's worth against EdM, but he would be making the most fatal mistake in the modern history of the Tory Party and the Union if he sunk Scotland's new powers because he didn't get EVEL before the GE.
It is perfectly simple.
It really, really is that simple, isn't it? Cameron made a promise to Scottish voters. If he does not keep it that will make him a liar and it will destroy the Union.
All three leaders are liars. They made a promise they didn't have the authority to keep. They have to get it through Parliament and past the English. They ought to really have a UK wide referendum to agree it, as the convention is clearly that constitutional change requires agreement by referendum.
So to have any chance of keeping their promise, they need to sell it to the English & get the agreement of all 4 countries of the UK.
I really don't know why the Scots don't understand this. Caveat emptor, the vow was not worth the paper it was written on. They should not have believed it.
Is the big question on EVFEL not: Where are the LibDems?
Dave could safely split the Vow and EVFEL into two bills and pass both if Clegg and the LibDems are there. I think he'd have the Scottish, Welsh and NI votes too (plus potentially some honourable Labour rebel / marginal seat votes). Labour don't have a majority.
This whole Sindy thing for weeks - Clegg has not put his head above the parapet even once.
Splitting into two bills, like he split HoL reform and boundary changes? That worked well.
Mr. Socrates, not sure that'd work for England come the election. With a Parliament promise it might, but Cameron seems dead set against that.
As on some other issues, this is an area where the UKIP position is the best, the Tory position is second best, and the Labour position is awful.
The UKIP position is the same as the Labour one, isn't it? We need a constitutional convention.
Long grass!
Hopefully UKIP will not be so stupid as to make the 'constitutional convention' they propose seem biased and pointless the moment they announce it. Miliband did exactly that.
What's the harm in having EVEL as a first step, to show the English that the politicos want to to address it, and then have a proper, open discussion on the way forward afterwards? For that will take years, and will probably never agree on anything.
That would indeed be the right message for the Tories to run with and in opposing EV4EL Labour is needlessly lining itself up to face that charge. My point is that is the Tories are now linking the clear promise Cameron made to Labour support for EV4EL they are over-reaching themselves spectacularly - not only will they more or less ensure the end of the Union, but they will also expose themselves to accusations of lying that will be heard and understood by voters in England.
What rubbish. It's just as easy to day that Labour's position of not addressing the democratic deficit will lead to the end of the union as the English get pi**ed off at being treated as second-class citizens.
Which is exactly how Labour treat them.
It's also fertile ground for UKIP and other parties. I cannot see how more powers can be given to Scotland *without* progress in England. It would be interesting to see what the Scots themselves feel about this ...
Are you seriously suggesting that the Vow Cameron signed was not binding? And that it is anything other than anti-democratic for a leader to make a specific, time-lined promise and them not to keep it?
Labour is clearly not addressing England's democratic deficit. I am not defending Labour's position - it is wrong and it is unsustainable. But I am afraid that does not let Cameron off the hook. He did not couple EV4EL to the promise he made to the Scottish people. That is just a matter of verifiable fact.
And yet you supported Labour throughout the Blair years, when the anti-democratic deficit caused by devolution was in place? How many 'vows' did Labour break, for instance on tuition fees?
People below have commented on how the Conservatives could keep the vow and heap the poison for blocking progress on the English issues onto Labour.
On a side issue, it would send a brilliant message if further devolution powers to Scotland (and Wales) were voted through by only English MPs. Regardless, it will be interesting to see if it is a free, or whipped, vote.
I have always supported PR and I have always supported an English parliament - as any scrutiny of my posts on here over the time I have been posting here would show. I voted Labour because I thought they were the least worst option. Last time I did not because I could no longer say that. And next year there is no least worst option, so I will not vote for one. As anyone who knows anything about FPTP knows, supporting a party in an election does not mean you support all its policies.
The Tories can certainly make hay on EV4EL and it could win over some UKIP supporters. What they should not do is tie it to the specific and time-lined promises Cameron made to the Scottish people.
SO He made a timetable to begin plans for constitutional reform, but England has to be a part of that too. Independence was clearly rejected by the Scots, devomax was not on the ballot paper. If devomax is going to occur then the unfairness of Scots MPs voting on English legislation while English MPs cannot do the same in Scotland has to be addressed, I do not see on what grounds you can possibly justify it?
Cameron made a promise to Scottish voters. It made no mention of EV4EL. I cannot see on what grounds he can justify breaking that promise. We will have to differ.
How about "85% of the population won't agree it without something in it for them". We do live in some sort of democracy.
''I really don't know why the Scots don't understand this. Caveat emptor, the vow was not worth the paper it was written on. They should not have believed it.''
The Scots aren;t stupid. They would have known this was the case. I imagine the response will be phlegmatic.
Mr. Socrates, not sure that'd work for England come the election. With a Parliament promise it might, but Cameron seems dead set against that.
As on some other issues, this is an area where the UKIP position is the best, the Tory position is second best, and the Labour position is awful.
The UKIP position is the same as the Labour one, isn't it? We need a constitutional convention.
Long grass!
Hopefully UKIP will not be so stupid as to make the 'constitutional convention' they propose seem biased and pointless the moment they announce it. Miliband did exactly that.
What's the harm in having EVEL as a first step, to show the English that the politicos want to to address it, and then have a proper, open discussion on the way forward afterwards? For that will take years, and will probably never agree on anything.
I agree. The only issue is working out what EV4EL actually means. And that's why Labour is so stupid not to support the principle.
SO He is not breaking his promise, just ensuring that if Devomax is introduced for the Scots giving them even more powers EVEL is introduced at the same time. It is the fairest solution for both Scotland and England and it seems to me illogical to oppose Cameron's position
@politicshome: Shadow Bis Sec Chuka Umunna on devolution: “What you are seeing is the Prime Minster here behaving in a dishonourable way.” @JPonpolitics
I really do fear The Stupid Party is too stupid to see that this is how the nation will view it, our reaffirmed Scottish cousins particularly.
There will be riots in George Square and elsewhere if Cameron is shown to have blocked delivery of The Vow because he wanted to move the goalposts and tie it up with his entirely reasonable and correct policy on EVEL, but which was not a stated pre-condition when he signed up to the further Scottish powers.
He can certainly push EVEL on the same timetable as for Scotland's new powers, and exploit that for all it's worth against EdM, but he would be making the most fatal mistake in the modern history of the Tory Party and the Union if he sunk Scotland's new powers because he didn't get EVEL before the GE.
It is perfectly simple.
It really, really is that simple, isn't it? Cameron made a promise to Scottish voters. If he does not keep it that will make him a liar and it will destroy the Union.
He made a cast iron pledge and broke that, which some of the Tories on here would do well to remember when they slag off us Kippers.
I have always supported PR and I have always supported an English parliament - as any scrutiny of my posts on here over the time I have been posting here would show. I voted Labour because I thought they were the least worst option. Last time I did not because I could no longer say that. And next year there is no least worst option, so I will not vote for one. As anyone who knows anything about FPTP knows, supporting a party in an election does not mean you support all its policies.
The Tories can certainly make hay on EV4EL and it could win over some UKIP supporters. What they should not do is tie it to the specific and time-lined promises Cameron made to the Scottish people.
"The Tories can certainly make hay on EV4EL and it could win over some UKIP supporters. What they should not do is tie it to the specific and time-lined promises Cameron made to the Scottish people."
Yes, they should. For not tying it will allow Labour to get away with their do-nothing approach, as they have for years. It is a way of applying pressure to see that the problem is resolved, or at least that we make immediate steps in that direction.
It has been ignored for too long. Labour want to ignore it in perpetuity.
Ed's performance in Scotland was truly shockingly bad. It was a rough old campaign with pretty much everyone on the no side being sworn at and threatened repeatedly with verbal violence (not that this amounted to much in reality). Ed really didn't like it. Now he is withdrawing from really important interviews which should be setting the tone for his conference. Are we missing a story here?
The conference should be a triumph as well as a launch for the GE but I really wonder if a party that lost Glasgow thinks they have much to celebrate. The activists I was working alongside were supremely confident about winning Glasgow and had internal polling to support it. Scottish Labour will be in shock.
Is a change of leader for Labour still a possibility? Would Ed who in fact turned out to have no stomach for the fight and departed stand down? It strikes me as a better bet than a Lib Dem gain, that is for sure.
You can be sure that the Party will have conducted private polls to find out if it would do better or worse under Harriet Herself...
Andy Burnham came to Dundee and struck me as nice but ineffectual. If the party wanted some fire in their soul and to protect those Glasgow and Lanarkshire seats they could do a lot worse than Murphy. David Cameron would find him a handful and the helicopter incident is good backstory stuff.
It is also worth remembering just how many Labour staffers were in Scotland latterly doing good work for No. They all saw this at first hand and the word will have gone back south of the border with them.
We had plenty of Murphy in Glasgow. Didn't seem to do much good there.
Right, I think I get it now. The Tories will put EV4EL in the bill that will deliver the powers promised by Dave. This will still pass because the coalition have a majority, but Labour will be forced to vote against it. Makes sense. That's politics.
you obviously don't want people to get a decent wage...
I would rather people got a wage, than no wage
The Tories will probably match this pledge anyway...
As Philiph and others point out below, the increase is pretty much in line with the 3% increase this year. Besides, I thought the rate was decided by the Low Pay Commission?
How many 'vows' did Labour break, for instance on tuition fees?
Probably not many at all. Labour (or New Labour) was generally pretty careful to include all the hard stuff in manifestos. Most voters don't read them but it meant the whips could counter would-be rebels by pointing to page 94.
Ed's performance in Scotland was truly shockingly bad. It was a rough old campaign with pretty much everyone on the no side being sworn at and threatened repeatedly with verbal violence (not that this amounted to much in reality). Ed really didn't like it. Now he is withdrawing from really important interviews which should be setting the tone for his conference. Are we missing a story here?
The conference should be a triumph as well as a launch for the GE but I really wonder if a party that lost Glasgow thinks they have much to celebrate. The activists I was working alongside were supremely confident about winning Glasgow and had internal polling to support it. Scottish Labour will be in shock.
Is a change of leader for Labour still a possibility? Would Ed who in fact turned out to have no stomach for the fight and departed stand down? It strikes me as a better bet than a Lib Dem gain, that is for sure.
You can be sure that the Party will have conducted private polls to find out if it would do better or worse under Harriet Herself...
Andy Burnham came to Dundee and struck me as nice but ineffectual. If the party wanted some fire in their soul and to protect those Glasgow and Lanarkshire seats they could do a lot worse than Murphy. David Cameron would find him a handful and the helicopter incident is good backstory stuff.
It is also worth remembering just how many Labour staffers were in Scotland latterly doing good work for No. They all saw this at first hand and the word will have gone back south of the border with them.
We had plenty of Murphy in Glasgow. Didn't seem to do much good there.
A quarter of Glaswegians couldn't be bothered to get off their arses to vote in this vital once in a lifetime referendum. They were put to shame by real Scots elsewhere.
you obviously don't want people to get a decent wage...
I would rather people got a wage, than no wage
The Tories will probably match this pledge anyway...
As Philiph and others point out below, the increase is pretty much in line with the 3% increase this year. Besides, I thought the rate was decided by the Low Pay Commission?
Yes, and its not a question of 'getting' a wage its one of 'earning' one. By that I mean that a job has to be worth its wage. Jobs will not be created if their use cannot produce a return. The other alternative is that wage inflation impoverishes us all.
Mr. Observer, Cameron isn't threatening to renege. He wants Scottish powers + a little bit of fairness for England. Miliband seems to consider a tiny of fairness for England as something horrendous.
Mr. Socrates, you're probably right about that.
I think you have got it in a nutshell. Keep shouting it.
@politicshome: Shadow Bis Sec Chuka Umunna on devolution: “What you are seeing is the Prime Minster here behaving in a dishonourable way.” @JPonpolitics
I really do fear The Stupid Party is too stupid to see that this is how the nation will view it, our reaffirmed Scottish cousins particularly.
There will be riots in George Square and elsewhere if Cameron is shown to have blocked delivery of The Vow because he wanted to move the goalposts and tie it up with his entirely reasonable and correct policy on EVEL, but which was not a stated pre-condition when he signed up to the further Scottish powers.
He can certainly push EVEL on the same timetable as for Scotland's new powers, and exploit that for all it's worth against EdM, but he would be making the most fatal mistake in the modern history of the Tory Party and the Union if he sunk Scotland's new powers because he didn't get EVEL before the GE.
It is perfectly simple.
It really, really is that simple, isn't it? Cameron made a promise to Scottish voters. If he does not keep it that will make him a liar and it will destroy the Union.
He made a cast iron pledge and broke that, which some of the Tories on here would do well to remember when they slag off us Kippers.
You slag yourself off by telling yet again a barefaced lie.
Comments
What do you think will happen to the tory party if Cameron does as you suggest?
Many English conservative MPs have already made it clear they will never vote to make their own citizens second class voters. They will vote against
The party would be utterly shattered and out of power for a generation. We are talking about a corn laws moment here.
It's simple
Urgent clarity is needed.
Really? According the PBKinnocks this is a disaster for Dave and will end the union.
Who is right, I wonder?
Not talk about changing the mattress first.
If Cameron does as you suggest he will destroy his own party. And I mean destroy. The strength of feeling here is massive.
The tories are in power. They will forever be remembered as the party that turned English voters into second class citizens.
Not even Ed with his 'project longrass' strategy can dodge the bullet that would be fired if no powers were transferred.
The only saving grace I see is that the Holyrood elections aren't till 2016. They have to get them through in good time for them (not the day before).
Rather a simplistic view from me there but, I feel it's a position where ultimately, it has to be that simple at the end of the day to ensure the separatist voice is cooled down.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29277363
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-29299088
People below have commented on how the Conservatives could keep the vow and heap the poison for blocking progress on the English issues onto Labour.
On a side issue, it would send a brilliant message if further devolution powers to Scotland (and Wales) were voted through by only English MPs. Regardless, it will be interesting to see if it is a free, or whipped, vote.
No he doesn't. And he won't.
Ed's massive problem with EV4EL is not a problem for Cameron, however much the PBKinnocks wish it so
@MarioCreatura: EdM: "For every pound you spend you save 50p on benefits!" Marr: "But that means you're still losing 50p?" EdM: *Bemused silence* #marrshow
No it isn;t. The Scots will understand. They will also see that it is labour that is really in the way of DevoMax, not the tories.
If it gathers currency in the media, then Labour have a big problem in the run-up to GE 2015. They created the mess, and have no desire to fix it.
Mr. Socrates, you're probably right about that.
So to have any chance of keeping their promise, they need to sell it to the English & get the agreement of all 4 countries of the UK.
I really don't know why the Scots don't understand this. Caveat emptor, the vow was not worth the paper it was written on. They should not have believed it.
Being a right-wing fruitcake, you obviously don't want people to get a decent wage...
Hopefully UKIP will not be so stupid as to make the 'constitutional convention' they propose seem biased and pointless the moment they announce it. Miliband did exactly that.
What's the harm in having EVEL as a first step, to show the English that the politicos want to to address it, and then have a proper, open discussion on the way forward afterwards? For that will take years, and will probably never agree on anything.
I have always supported PR and I have always supported an English parliament - as any scrutiny of my posts on here over the time I have been posting here would show. I voted Labour because I thought they were the least worst option. Last time I did not because I could no longer say that. And next year there is no least worst option, so I will not vote for one. As anyone who knows anything about FPTP knows, supporting a party in an election does not mean you support all its policies.
The Tories can certainly make hay on EV4EL and it could win over some UKIP supporters. What they should not do is tie it to the specific and time-lined promises Cameron made to the Scottish people.
The Scots aren;t stupid. They would have known this was the case. I imagine the response will be phlegmatic.
Yes, they should. For not tying it will allow Labour to get away with their do-nothing approach, as they have for years. It is a way of applying pressure to see that the problem is resolved, or at least that we make immediate steps in that direction.
It has been ignored for too long. Labour want to ignore it in perpetuity.
Durrr.