However there are dangers here for the Nats, despite the expected and instant surge in sympathy.
It is easy to see them splitting over the next two years between fundamentalists - the 45 - who WILL want another vote ASAP, and the wiser gradualists (and remember that Salmond himself was a gradualist). Sturgeon has a difficult job.
Agreed.
I said this to my Dad and Brothers yesterday. I suspect this might well happen.
Greetings from Crna Gora. I'm currently thinking of turning to the Westminster Scottish seats in the wake of the referendum result on my return from sabbatical next weekend. Initial thoughts: it's complicated.
Excellent news. If it was simple, we wouldn't need your analysis!
Hope you're enjoying your sabbatical!
Do we need his analysis? Antifrank's analysis of indyref was that YES would get 57%.
Nope. My judgement of the best chance of winning the prize was Yes 57%.
In the Election Game competition, where winner doesn't take all, I estimated 44.56%.
However there are dangers here for the Nats, despite the expected and instant surge in sympathy.
It is easy to see them splitting over the next two years between fundamentalists - the 45 - who WILL want another vote ASAP, and the wiser gradualists (and remember that Salmond himself was a gradualist). Sturgeon has a difficult job.
The proposed Euro Referendum in 2017 is critical. If it occurs and the UK votes to leave but Scotland votes to stay then that because a legitimate casus belli for a new independence vote. The logic behind the justification would be unarguable.
Agreed. I think that's the only way we might see another indyref before, say, 2025-2030 at the earliest - and yes, the logic then would be hard to deny.
But I think the chances of the UK voting out in 2017 are about 1%. Cameron is highly unlikely to win an overall majority, and if he does, he will get some fake reform from the EU, and the Brits will vote to stay. I also believe indyref has frightened the voters down south, ironically - making them less likely to vote OUT. Everyone wants stability now - apart from "the 45", the cybernatty irreconcilables.
Can Sturgeon calm down her extremists? She has to, to keep her party credible in the long term.
I agree with your assessment, and it's a great shame. However, the time will come.
What's to stop Cameron quickly putting a Scots bill together with some really simple English voting rules that apply to Westminster parliament straight away.
Could help Libs in Scotland as they have supported the quick change Scots want.
Labour won't be able to stop it and will have to go into the 2015 election with a clear anti English vote platform to change the law back.
Screws them completely.
On the face of it I suppose it could work, although apparently it just is not that simple a thing to propose even though it seems like it should be, although a few other thoughts occur as to why it probably wouldn't get through anyway:
a) I doubt Cameron can pull together enough of his own party behind any proposals he puts together, it has become apparent that a significant small bunch are quite happy to see the Tories fail miserably if it means for definite Cameron will be gone.
b) nothing can help the LDs in Scotland so I suspect their strategy overall will be to try and copy Labour but be even more Labour than them if that makes sense, to try and get tactical votes from them in England, so will fall in line with them.
Just catching up with the previous thread on the Indyref competition.
Thank you for the congratulations.
Whilst I had the exact YES % vote, I over estimated the turnout by 3.71% and others had a much closer combined score.
As I have previously posted, it has always seemed to me that as the union was mutually agreed between Scotland and rUK, the rUK should also have been voting whether or not to break the union.
Following the referendum we could do with some clear principles about which criteria to use for determining whether political decisions are best made at EU, UK, country, county or district level. We could certainly do without an additional regional level being introduced in England.
Thanks to Mike for founding and runnig the site; thanks to you all for the knowledgeable and thoughtful posts; and good luck with your political betting.
"Given how accurately you called the referendum, the SNP will be worried."
You noticed! For the first time ever I've been vaguely on the inside track of Scottish politics for the last few days and it's surprising what you pick up.
I was really impressed by your insights.
From now I shall be betting based on your tips.
Talking of Roger's tips and insights, should we be lumping on The Imitation Game (Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing) for the Oscars?
Yes. Benedict is God.
Hmmmm. Ralph Fiennes is getting a lot of approving nods for Grand Hotel Budapest.....
What's to stop Cameron quickly putting a Scots bill together with some really simple English voting rules that apply to Westminster parliament straight away.
Could help Libs in Scotland as they have supported the quick change Scots want.
Labour won't be able to stop it and will have to go into the 2015 election with a clear anti English vote platform to change the law back.
Screws them completely.
Labour would just change it back on the back of another bill when no one was paying attention. Or if that didn't work they'd just claim every bill has UK wide implications.
What's to stop Cameron quickly putting a Scots bill together with some really simple English voting rules that apply to Westminster parliament straight away.
Could help Libs in Scotland as they have supported the quick change Scots want.
Labour won't be able to stop it and will have to go into the 2015 election with a clear anti English vote platform to change the law back.
Screws them completely.
Not an expert on parliamentary process, but I think it'd be v.hard if not impossible to get anything done that fast.
"Given how accurately you called the referendum, the SNP will be worried."
You noticed! For the first time ever I've been vaguely on the inside track of Scottish politics for the last few days and it's surprising what you pick up.
I was really impressed by your insights.
From now I shall be betting based on your tips.
Talking of Roger's tips and insights, should we be lumping on The Imitation Game (Benedict Cumberbatch as Alan Turing) for the Oscars?
Yes. Benedict is God.
Hmmmm. Ralph Fiennes is getting a lot of approving nods for Grand Hotel Budapest.....
In any of his many, many interviews today, did anyone ask yesterday's man Alex Salmond when "the settled will of the Scottish Peeple (sic)" became "we'll try again until we get the answer we want"?
I'm far from clear as to why the introduction of more powers to Holyrood needs to be conditional on English votes for English Laws (the Knievel Principle). The two seem to me to be disconnected in the short term - the pledge for extra powers for Holyrood was just that without any reference to EWNI (as far as I recall).
The question of English devolution needs to go far beyond EV4EL which is just a starting point and needs to address some fundamental questions about how England should be governed and the relationship and distribution of powers between some form of England-only law making body and the network of democratically elected and accountable local authorities which already exist.
One of the principles of devolving power has to be to repatriate as much of that power as possible to the local level.
My first concern is that the Conservatives, who have shown themselves in the past to be inherent centralisers and, for example, won't allow a Tory heartland like Surrey to set its own Council Tax, are only interested in creating a law-making body which (they may believe) provides a permanent majority for them and a potential blocking minority against any future UK Labour majority Government.
My second concern is that Labour, who have shown themselves in the past to be inherent centralisers and, for example, won't allow a socialist heartland like Newham to set its own Council Tax, are only interested in preventing the creation of a law-making body which (they may believe) provides a permanent minority for them and a potential block against any future UK Labour majority Government.
The SNP website is crashing repeatedly under the load of new members trying to sign up.
How did they think they could run an independent country when they cant even run a website.
Also, does the SNP actually want all these new members? Presumably they are all REALLY REALLY angry people, who are so f*cked off they want a new referendum on Tuesday. These are, presumably, the same people who signed that mad petition claiming that the referendum was rigged by MI5 and the Jews.
They are going to tip the party to the extreme, and alienate the bourgeoisie - the middle classes who voted NO - the voters Sturgeon urgently needs to keep on board.
Imagine the Tories getting a sudden influx of Kippers, EDL-ers and BNP-ers? It wouldn't be good for then, long term, as they would begin to affect policy
I see trouble ahead for the Nats, even as they revel in their popular grievances today.
Salmond himself is one of them...
The Scottish First Minister tells Sky News that No voters are "angry and hurt" because they have been "tricked"
What's to stop Cameron quickly putting a Scots bill together with some really simple English voting rules that apply to Westminster parliament straight away.
Could help Libs in Scotland as they have supported the quick change Scots want.
Labour won't be able to stop it and will have to go into the 2015 election with a clear anti English vote platform to change the law back.
Screws them completely.
They'll never pass it in the six months before GE 2015: parliament will be dissolved at the end of March.
What's to stop Cameron quickly putting a Scots bill together with some really simple English voting rules that apply to Westminster parliament straight away.
Could help Libs in Scotland as they have supported the quick change Scots want.
Labour won't be able to stop it and will have to go into the 2015 election with a clear anti English vote platform to change the law back.
Screws them completely.
Labour would just change it back on the back of another bill when no one was paying attention. Or if that didn't work they'd just claim every bill has UK wide implications.
Because such a Bill will have unintended consequences that need thinking through. What is UK going to do if there is a Labour UK majority, but a Labour England minority? There would be Government and Opposition swapping sides if the Bill being debated was England only.
The SNP website is crashing repeatedly under the load of new members trying to sign up.
How did they think they could run an independent country when they cant even run a website.
Also, does the SNP actually want all these new members? Presumably they are all REALLY REALLY angry people, who are so f*cked off they want a new referendum on Tuesday. These are, presumably, the same people who signed that mad petition claiming that the referendum was rigged by MI5 and the Jews.
They are going to tip the party to the extreme, and alienate the bourgeoisie - the middle classes who voted NO - the voters Sturgeon urgently needs to keep on board.
Imagine the Tories getting a sudden influx of Kippers, EDL-ers and BNP-ers? It wouldn't be good for then, long term, as they would begin to affect policy
I see trouble ahead for the Nats, even as they revel in their popular grievances today.
Salmond himself is one of them...
The Scottish First Minister tells Sky News that No voters are "angry and hurt" because they have been "tricked"
It's amazing that he knew the people of Scotland so well to be certain that Yes would win, and that even having got that wrong, he is able to be so spot on, he has no doubt, about what No voters think as well.
On a similar note, it is highly amusing that I have seen some comments from Yes supporters lamenting that the desperate rush north and union blitz from the Westminster leaders played a part in a push back to No, as I am sure they had stated it would only increase the Yes vote, but apparently now they're complaining that it worked?
However there are dangers here for the Nats, despite the expected and instant surge in sympathy.
It is easy to see them splitting over the next two years between fundamentalists - the 45 - who WILL want another vote ASAP, and the wiser gradualists (and remember that Salmond himself was a gradualist). Sturgeon has a difficult job.
The proposed Euro Referendum in 2017 is critical. If it occurs and the UK votes to leave but Scotland votes to stay then that because a legitimate casus belli for a new independence vote. The logic behind the justification would be unarguable.
Agreed. I think that's the only way we might see another indyref before, say, 2025-2030 at the earliest - and yes, the logic then would be hard to deny.
The only other possibility of a "near term" indy vote is if, somehow, the Westmisnter parties fuck up their plans to give Scotland their shitebag passel of new powers.
The powers that are proposed are basically meaningless nothing that in some cases are actually harmful to Scotland so should be easy to hand off but for some reason they seem to be making it hard for themselves.
If they can't get it together to hand over "new powers" in a coupleof years then they will piss off a significant percentage of No voters - I think it was 25% who said their primary reason for voting No was that more powers were forthcoming.
I'm far from clear as to why the introduction of more powers to Holyrood needs to be conditional on English votes for English Laws (the Knievel Principle). The two seem to me to be disconnected in the short term - the pledge for extra powers for Holyrood was just that without any reference to EWNI (as far as I recall).
The question of English devolution needs to go far beyond EV4EL which is just a starting point and needs to address some fundamental questions about how England should be governed and the relationship and distribution of powers between some form of England-only law making body and the network of democratically elected and accountable local authorities which already exist.
I think you're quite right. Both sides are currently playing politics with this, but while it might be useful if one vast settlement were done at the same time, the English question is a lot more complicated, a lot less advanced, and with far less consensus on an outcome. Therefore, to insist upon them being tied in with further Scottish powers already, in principle, agreed, is an intently political move as far as I can see, intended to delay the Scottish powers from being agreed prior to the GE (for a vote afterwards), for what purpose I am uncertain - so that a Lab majority government will take full blame if what is devolved is less than what the Scots thought they were promised (even if it is exactly what was promised)?
I don't see why the Tories cannot push through with the Scottish powers timetable as agreed, everyone wins as they are shown to have kept their word, and he can present Tory proposals for England Wales and NI in time for the GE so he can show he is sticking up for all of them with the proof of acting quickly and keeping his word that the Scottish powers devolution timetable being kept to would enable.
The only benefit I see to pushing the timetable of the Scottish powers onto England is to try to appear as England's champion, but by delaying in Scotland they would surely be underminding any Tory revival hopes in Scotland and Wales by delaying things, to almost no gain in England as it is not as though the Labour heartlands are suddenly going to turn against Labour for being anti-English (and if they do, they would go UKIP before Tory).
What's to stop Cameron quickly putting a Scots bill together with some really simple English voting rules that apply to Westminster parliament straight away.
Could help Libs in Scotland as they have supported the quick change Scots want.
Labour won't be able to stop it and will have to go into the 2015 election with a clear anti English vote platform to change the law back.
Screws them completely.
They'll never pass it in the six months before GE 2015: parliament will be dissolved at the end of March.
Have you seen how little other business needs to be conducted. They could spend a whole month of Parliamentary time on this without impacting other things
However satisfying it is to vent their anger, aggressive claims of trickery and duplicity and a lurch towards a Neverendum will (as I say downthread) put the heebie-jeebies into Scottish business, and the bourgeois voters.
Perhaps, as suggested in the Independent article, once the Court of King Eck is disbanded some more negative voices might surface.
The referendum post-match analysis ought to give Cameron credit for winning it. It ought to criticise Salmond for his shocking defending, although he has now criticised himself. And it ought to ask of Miliband: what is the point of him? But politics is cruel, and the Prime Minister will get scant thanks for having saved the Union.
Definitely starting to look like some predictions a while back that the SNP would fall apart after the referendum were wishful thinking.
I doubt they'll poll this next year, but they should still comfortably secure their best performance at a Westminster election since the 1970s, and possibly their best-ever performance (currently Oct 1974, 11 seats, 30% of the vote).
58% of UK voters want English votes for English laws, with only 22% opposed and the figures were the same regardless of whether they lived in Scotland or England.
However, while 40% of UK voters support Devomax, 38% are opposed, a much narrower margin than EVEL
So in the Premier League all teams now played 5 who would have thought Southampton,Aston Villa, Swansea, Leicester West Ham and Hull would all be in the top half and Liverpool,Man Utd, Everton and Newcastle would all be in the bottom half
Great plan for EV4EL from the Economist . Make it PROPORTIONAL so CON wouldn't, as currently, have 56% of English seats on 39.6% of votes http://econ.st/1rqP2m5
Definitely starting to look like some predictions a while back that the SNP would fall apart after the referendum were wishful thinking.
I doubt they'll poll this next year, but they should still comfortably secure their best performance at a Westminster election since the 1970s, and possibly their best-ever performance (currently Oct 1974, 11 seats, 30% of the vote).
They are still in the denial phase. They will not be polling like this for long.
They lost the referendum of their lifetimes by a clear margin.
I don't see why the Tories cannot push through with the Scottish powers timetable as agreed, everyone wins as they are shown to have kept their word, and he can present Tory proposals for England Wales and NI in time for the GE so he can show he is sticking up for all of them with the proof of acting quickly and keeping his word that the Scottish powers devolution timetable being kept to would enable.
Because in that scenario, Cameron won't be able to get it past his backbenches, and he's scared they'll oust him and is just saying anything to try and get them off his back. I really think it's as simple as that, rather than some Machiavellian scheme to "get Labour on the run" or whatever.
Of course in Quebec the BQ still won the next election despite losing the 1980 and 1995 referendums so another SNP win would not be surprising. I think the Tories could win some rural SNP seats at Westminster at the general election though, in SNP seats which had a clear No majority
Great plan for EV4EL from the Economist . Make it PROPORTIONAL so CON wouldn't, as currently, have 56% of English seats on 39.6% of votes http://econ.st/1rqP2m5
Great so let's design the system to stop the Tories getting in.
Labour were fine with FPTP when they thought they were going to get in with 35% of the vote, but now it looks like the Tories will instead they start shouting about how it isn't proportional.
Definitely starting to look like some predictions a while back that the SNP would fall apart after the referendum were wishful thinking.
I doubt they'll poll this next year, but they should still comfortably secure their best performance at a Westminster election since the 1970s, and possibly their best-ever performance (currently Oct 1974, 11 seats, 30% of the vote).
They are still in the denial phase. They will not be polling like this for long.
They lost the referendum of their lifetimes by a clear margin.
When people suffer such a blow to something they believed so strongly they would succeed in, they either collapse, or double down in their fanaticism, I suspect. If they can find the right triggers to maintain support levels (hating Westminster etc), people more widely may be able to be convinced to try again.
I give it less than 10 years before there's a new vote. Perhaps that one will be organised without Westminster backing however.
Mr. Sulphate, quite. Gerrymandering where gets devolution and by what mechanism to try and entrench party advantage is not only short-sighted and stupid, it's shockingly anti-democratic.
So in the Premier League all teams now played 5 who would have thought Southampton,Aston Villa, Swansea, Leicester West Ham and Hull would all be in the top half and Liverpool,Man Utd, Everton and Newcastle would all be in the bottom half
When OGH tipped Burnley +52 in the handicap; I did point out that Leicester +44 was a better bet!
Our finishing is getting better, we squandered a few good chances against Arsenal and Chelsea.
On MUFC: selling all your best defenders and spending £60 million on a striker is not a good plan!
I don't see why the Tories cannot push through with the Scottish powers timetable as agreed, everyone wins as they are shown to have kept their word, and he can present Tory proposals for England Wales and NI in time for the GE so he can show he is sticking up for all of them with the proof of acting quickly and keeping his word that the Scottish powers devolution timetable being kept to would enable.
Because in that scenario, Cameron won't be able to get it past his backbenches, and he's scared they'll oust him and is just saying anything to try and get them off his back. I really think it's as simple as that, rather than some Machiavellian scheme to "get Labour on the run" or whatever.
So because he cannot get a more achievable, if longer term, plan past his own backbenchers, he'll push for a plan he cannot get past the other parties, meaning that it will only exist as a campaigning platform for the GE which will undermine them in Scotland and Wales (Tories delay promises on new powers), presumably to head off UKIP 'stealing' anymore of their vote by presenting as the true party of the English?
Great plan for EV4EL from the Economist . Make it PROPORTIONAL so CON wouldn't, as currently, have 56% of English seats on 39.6% of votes http://econ.st/1rqP2m5
Great so let's design the system to stop the Tories getting in.
Labour were fine with FPTP when they thought they were going to get in with 35% of the vote, but now it looks like the Tories will instead they start shouting about how it isn't proportional.
Absolutely laughable.
FPTP is fine when there are two parties with 80 or 90% of the vote between them.
When the 'big two' get sub 65%, then PR makes much more sense. Favouring strong government is fine. But only when it does not result in parties getting sizeable majorities on barely a third of the vote (see Labour 2005).
I would have thought that the rise of UKIP on the right should make everyone (with the exception of die hard Labour supporters) keen on some form of PR.
the result of the referendum was not a moral victory. It was a defeat. A thumping. A trouncing.
The Scottish electorate’s verdict on the Union was unambiguous. Even in Mr Salmond’s home constituency of Aberdeenshire, independence was resoundingly rejected by 60 per cent to 40 per cent. In the end, after all the Yes campaign’s euphoric blather, just four out of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas — Dundee, Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire — voted “yes”.
I agree with David Cameron: this debate has been “settled for a generation or . . . perhaps for a lifetime. There can be no disputes, no re-runs.” The nationalists will, of course, think otherwise, remembering that only 15 years separated Quebec’s two votes on independence from Canada. They will be wrong. This is dead and Mr Salmond is gone.
So in the Premier League all teams now played 5 who would have thought Southampton,Aston Villa, Swansea, Leicester West Ham and Hull would all be in the top half and Liverpool,Man Utd, Everton and Newcastle would all be in the bottom half
Being much better at football prediction than political prediction I have today made at least a bit of the money back I lost on the Scottish referendum by going for the Baggies to beat Spurs I-0. Not that it needed much predictive power.
Mr. Sulphate, quite. Gerrymandering where gets devolution and by what mechanism to try and entrench party advantage is not only short-sighted and stupid, it's shockingly anti-democratic.
I've read a lot of comments and articles on left leaning sites about EV4EL and they all want to change the rules purely to stop the Tories getting a majority and running England.
The tone of it amazes me where they seem to think that they are morally right to prevent England being run by the party that got the most votes.
If the situations were reversed with the Tories getting a majority off Scottish votes the left would be screaming blue murder about it.
Great plan for EV4EL from the Economist . Make it PROPORTIONAL so CON wouldn't, as currently, have 56% of English seats on 39.6% of votes http://econ.st/1rqP2m5
Great so let's design the system to stop the Tories getting in.
Labour were fine with FPTP when they thought they were going to get in with 35% of the vote, but now it looks like the Tories will instead they start shouting about how it isn't proportional.
Absolutely laughable.
Is The Economist Labour now? That is news.
However, if EV4EL is about fairness - what is fair about a scenario in which a party that got 35% of the vote blocking legislation backed by parties that may have got 50% of the vote?
These points are all entirely valid. But they risk making Labour look as self-interested as the Conservatives.
It risks looking that way because that is the way it is. I think taking a slower, longer look at the English issue is necessary and appropriate, but Labour's objections to such constitutional changes, and solutions they suggest, will be just as concerned with securing their advantage as the Tories. The urgency of the issues for each is dependent on how much they feel a particular solution benefits them, even if they might be totally right on the principle depending on the issue.
As for the LDs, they actually seem to me to have the best grip on the reforms needed of all the main parties and the SNP, Clegg wants Devomax, plus EVEL plus more powers for city and county councils in England
I don't see why the Tories cannot push through with the Scottish powers timetable as agreed, everyone wins as they are shown to have kept their word, and he can present Tory proposals for England Wales and NI in time for the GE so he can show he is sticking up for all of them with the proof of acting quickly and keeping his word that the Scottish powers devolution timetable being kept to would enable.
Because in that scenario, Cameron won't be able to get it past his backbenches, and he's scared they'll oust him and is just saying anything to try and get them off his back. I really think it's as simple as that, rather than some Machiavellian scheme to "get Labour on the run" or whatever.
So because he cannot get a more achievable, if longer term, plan past his own backbenchers, he'll push for a plan he cannot get past the other parties, meaning that it will only exist as a campaigning platform for the GE which will undermine them in Scotland and Wales (Tories delay promises on new powers), presumably to head off UKIP 'stealing' anymore of their vote by presenting as the true party of the English?
Pretty much. He just seems to decide these things on the basis of what will stop the Tory backbenchers coming for him and help him survive the next week, screw the long-term consequences. Though to be fair, he's maybe right to be scared given how irrational and batshit crazy so many of his MPs are.
Mr. Sulphate, quite. Gerrymandering where gets devolution and by what mechanism to try and entrench party advantage is not only short-sighted and stupid, it's shockingly anti-democratic.
Agreed - so to be absolutely fair let's have for England the voting systems that Scotland and Wales have. That way, of course, Labour will never get a majority in England, whereas under FPTP they very easily could even when they get less votes than the Tories - see 2005.
Mr. Observer, number of representatives matter more than vote percentage. The public has recently backed FPTP against an allegedly more proportional approach.
Great plan for EV4EL from the Economist . Make it PROPORTIONAL so CON wouldn't, as currently, have 56% of English seats on 39.6% of votes http://econ.st/1rqP2m5
Great so let's design the system to stop the Tories getting in.
Labour were fine with FPTP when they thought they were going to get in with 35% of the vote, but now it looks like the Tories will instead they start shouting about how it isn't proportional.
Absolutely laughable.
FPTP is fine when there are two parties with 80 or 90% of the vote between them.
When the 'big two' get sub 65%, then PR makes much more sense. Favouring strong government is fine. But only when it does not result in parties getting sizeable majorities on barely a third of the vote (see Labour 2005).
I would have thought that the rise of UKIP on the right should make everyone (with the exception of die hard Labour supporters) keen on some form of PR.
Yes this is fair enough and I agree with most of it.
But Labour saying that if EV4EL goes through then we have to change the system to PR and break England up into regions, but if it doesn't go through we'll keep the system because it suits us is absolutely ridiculous.
I think a coalition between the 2nd and 4th most popular parties might be the catalyst for change after the election next year. Although in that case I still can't see Labour agreeing to it despite their current bleating about lack of proportionality. The system is only unfair unless they are the ones benefiting from it.
The only other possibility of a "near term" indy vote is if, somehow, the Westmisnter parties fuck up their plans to give Scotland their shitebag passel of new powers.
.
This will be interesting to watch. It's obvious that the chances of resolving the English issues before the general election are in the region of nil. So Tory MPs will be asked to devolve more power to Scotland with only a vague promise that England will get something after the election. This seems likely to lead to a massive rebellion and Cameron will only get it through with the support of the Lib Dems and Labour.
What's to stop Cameron quickly putting a Scots bill together with some really simple English voting rules that apply to Westminster parliament straight away.
Could help Libs in Scotland as they have supported the quick change Scots want.
Labour won't be able to stop it and will have to go into the 2015 election with a clear anti English vote platform to change the law back.
What's to stop Cameron quickly putting a Scots bill together with some really simple English voting rules that apply to Westminster parliament straight away.
Could help Libs in Scotland as they have supported the quick change Scots want.
Labour won't be able to stop it and will have to go into the 2015 election with a clear anti English vote platform to change the law back.
Screws them completely.
Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax!
Great plan for EV4EL from the Economist . Make it PROPORTIONAL so CON wouldn't, as currently, have 56% of English seats on 39.6% of votes http://econ.st/1rqP2m5
Great so let's design the system to stop the Tories getting in.
Labour were fine with FPTP when they thought they were going to get in with 35% of the vote, but now it looks like the Tories will instead they start shouting about how it isn't proportional.
Absolutely laughable.
I would have thought that the rise of UKIP on the right should make everyone (with the exception of die hard Labour supporters) keen on some form of PR.
Maybe, in time. Although it might be weird for people argued FPTP was the fairest and most superior system to suddenly have to start defending something else entirely, it could be managed, like staunch opponents of devolution accepting a new reality and becoming intense demanders of further devolution.
"Control" over income tax is the ultimate poisoned chalice. It's at best meaningless without control of the other revenue streams and mostly damaging.
Between 2010-11 and 2011-12 Scottish Income Tax take decreased by 110 million pounds. National Insurance Contributions increased by 470 million pounds Geographic Share of oil increased by 1.7 billion pounds
Overall Tax Receipts for Scotland were up 3.4 billion pounds but Income Tax was down. In a world where Scotland gets "control" over income tax that could see a reduction in Scotland's budget despite an overall increase in tax take.
And it goes both ways, from 11-12 to 12-13 overall Tax Receipts were down but income tax was up - should that really result in a budget increase?
Giving control of income tax without control of other revenue streams result in perverse incentives for governance.
Great plan for EV4EL from the Economist . Make it PROPORTIONAL so CON wouldn't, as currently, have 56% of English seats on 39.6% of votes http://econ.st/1rqP2m5
Great so let's design the system to stop the Tories getting in.
Labour were fine with FPTP when they thought they were going to get in with 35% of the vote, but now it looks like the Tories will instead they start shouting about how it isn't proportional.
Absolutely laughable.
Is The Economist Labour now? That is news.
However, if EV4EL is about fairness - what is fair about a scenario in which a party that got 35% of the vote blocking legislation backed by parties that may have got 50% of the vote?
It isn't fair and no one is arguing that it is.
It's the idea that it is unfair when just applied to England, but fine when applied to the whole of the UK that is ridiculous.
As is the connection to EV4EL of which there isn't any whatsoever.
So in the Premier League all teams now played 5 who would have thought Southampton,Aston Villa, Swansea, Leicester West Ham and Hull would all be in the top half and Liverpool,Man Utd, Everton and Newcastle would all be in the bottom half
Being much better at football prediction than political prediction I have today made at least a bit of the money back I lost on the Scottish referendum by going for the Baggies to beat Spurs I-0. Not that it needed much predictive power.
I am rubbish at football betting.
According to my Betfair P&L the 2 categories that put me in overall profit are golf and politics. Sounds a good plan for year 2 of retirement. Hoping KKR win this afternoon to put cricket into profit.
Mr. Observer, number of representatives matter more than vote percentage. The public has recently backed FPTP against an allegedly more proportional approach.
Mr. Sulphate, well quite.
Got it; so EV4EL is not actually about fairness and giving England what the Scots have.
Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax!
There's the problem for Labour
The Tories pitch is English Votes for English Laws, which Labour oppose.
Labours' pitch is Labour Votes for English Laws.
Which of these might English voters prefer at the GE?
"Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax! "
Indeed - if you don't have a constitutional convention in which the issues are settled by cross-party agreement what will happen is piecemeal change decided by whoever is in government to its advantage.
'I'm far from clear as to why the introduction of more powers to Holyrood needs to be conditional on English votes for English Laws (the Knievel Principle)
Because English voters have been short changed & ignored for the past 15 years.
Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax!
There's the problem for Labour
The Tories pitch is English Votes for English Laws, which Labour oppose.
Labours' pitch is Labour Votes for English Laws.
Which of these might English voters prefer at the GE?
Well that would depend on which part of England you ask of course.
Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax!
There's the problem for Labour
The Tories pitch is English Votes for English Laws, which Labour oppose.
Labours' pitch is Labour Votes for English Laws.
Which of these might English voters prefer at the GE?
"Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax! "
Indeed - if you don't have a constitutional convention in which the issues are settled by cross-party agreement what will happen is piecemeal change decided by whoever is in government to its advantage.
Except the 'constitutional convention' Miliband proposes is a stitch-up from the very start, thus negating that argument.
Mr. Observer, I want an English Parliament with FPTP.
English votes for English laws is a reasonable stopgap measure.
Balkanising Britain for Labour's petty political advantage and gerrymandering electoral systems is not.
As for an English Parliament with an alternative electoral system: it would depend on the approach. I am a strong supporter of FPTP and would never back PR (a recipe for weakness, coalition, compromise and lowest common denominator politics). An alternative system *might* be acceptable.
kle 4 But 'there are the same number of/slightly more Scottish Tory MPs than Pandas in Edinburgh Zoo' has nowhere near the same impact as 'There are more Pandas in Edinburgh Zoo than Tory MPs in Scotland'
'I'm far from clear as to why the introduction of more powers to Holyrood needs to be conditional on English votes for English Laws (the Knievel Principle)
Because English voters have been short changed & ignored for the past 15 years.
No, that's why the matter needs resolving, not why it needs to happen at the same time as the Holyrood powers despite it being pretty much impossible to sort out the English question within the timetable agreed to about the Scottish ones. If the timetable had not been agreed to, then no problem, sort them out at the same time.
"Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax! "
Indeed - if you don't have a constitutional convention in which the issues are settled by cross-party agreement what will happen is piecemeal change decided by whoever is in government to its advantage.
Except the 'constitutional convention' Miliband proposes is a stitch-up from the very start, thus negating that argument.
Can you link to the details so that we can see if you are right? You may well be, but I have not seen them published anywhere so can't make a call. Where did you find them?
Freggles Which is why Clegg is also sensibly proposing more powers be given to county AND city councils. Regional assemblies will need to be approved by referendums
What's to stop Cameron quickly putting a Scots bill together with some really simple English voting rules that apply to Westminster parliament straight away.
Could help Libs in Scotland as they have supported the quick change Scots want.
Labour won't be able to stop it and will have to go into the 2015 election with a clear anti English vote platform to change the law back.
What's to stop Cameron quickly putting a Scots bill together with some really simple English voting rules that apply to Westminster parliament straight away.
Could help Libs in Scotland as they have supported the quick change Scots want.
Labour won't be able to stop it and will have to go into the 2015 election with a clear anti English vote platform to change the law back.
Screws them completely.
Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax!
Well they'd have to get it through first wouldn't they?
"Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax! "
Indeed - if you don't have a constitutional convention in which the issues are settled by cross-party agreement what will happen is piecemeal change decided by whoever is in government to its advantage.
It's a tricky one. Tories cannot get agreement on all proposals within their timetable, but Labour's handily means that they don't even have to commit to anything in principle while in opposition, but only once they have their (probable) majority and don't have to play as nice.
"Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax! "
Indeed - if you don't have a constitutional convention in which the issues are settled by cross-party agreement what will happen is piecemeal change decided by whoever is in government to its advantage.
Except the 'constitutional convention' Miliband proposes is a stitch-up from the very start, thus negating that argument.
To a lefty a constitutional convention means doing exactly what they want whilst stitching up the Tories.
Can't someone on the left just be honest and admit they don't want EV4EL because they don't want the Tories to have power in England.
kle 4 But 'there are the same number of/slightly more Scottish Tory MPs than Pandas in Edinburgh Zoo' has nowhere near the same impact as 'There are more Pandas in Edinburgh Zoo than Tory MPs in Scotland'
Less impact, certainly, but I cannot see such a 'hilarious' joke being abandoned so easily.
Mr. Observer, I want an English Parliament with FPTP.
English votes for English laws is a reasonable stopgap measure.
Balkanising Britain for Labour's petty political advantage and gerrymandering electoral systems is not.
As for an English Parliament with an alternative electoral system: it would depend on the approach. I am a strong supporter of FPTP and would never back PR (a recipe for weakness, coalition, compromise and lowest common denominator politics). An alternative system *might* be acceptable.
I want an English parliament too, but one in which the very diverse views of English people are represented. I don't see that as gerrymandering, I see that as democratic. And if it means politicians from different parties working together I think that is a good thing.
"Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax! "
Indeed - if you don't have a constitutional convention in which the issues are settled by cross-party agreement what will happen is piecemeal change decided by whoever is in government to its advantage.
It's a tricky one. Tories cannot get agreement on all proposals within their timetable, but Labour's handily means that they don't even have to commit to anything in principle while in opposition, but only once they have their (probable) majority and don't have to play as nice.
Labour's position is a transparent joke. But the Tory position is pretty transparent too. I am looking forward to finding out what Hague suggests EV4EL should mean in practice when he lets us know next year.
Mr. Observer, you speak as if FPTP is some evil mechanism whereby people's views are ignored and politicians emerge via a sort of Magic 8-Ball system of election. It isn't. It's a perfectly sound system which delivers stronger governments, which is in the national interest.
Parties 'working together' means jettisoning manifesto pledges left, right and centre with the bulletproof pretext of 'coalition'. FPTP means when manifesto pledges are broken by a majority government the Government can be held to account [yes, we have a coalition now, but that's very unusual].
The only other possibility of a "near term" indy vote is if, somehow, the Westmisnter parties fuck up their plans to give Scotland their shitebag passel of new powers.
.
This will be interesting to watch. It's obvious that the chances of resolving the English issues before the general election are in the region of nil. So Tory MPs will be asked to devolve more power to Scotland with only a vague promise that England will get something after the election. This seems likely to lead to a massive rebellion and Cameron will only get it through with the support of the Lib Dems and Labour.
"This seems likely to lead to a massive rebellion"
I'm not so sure, mainly due to the parliamentary timetable. This is likely to happen in the early months of next year, when MPs thoughts will be on the GE and keeping their own seats. What good would a massive party-splitting argument do at that time? It would just put their own seats in jeopardy. Instead, they will be able to direct their, and the public's, anger at Labour for blocking 'fairness'.
In addition, this idea gives the Conservative MPs a great line to trot out during the GE in England:
"Only the Conservatives can bring English votes for English laws."
Which will be modified in the rest of the UK to: "Only the Conservatives bring fairness to all the countries!" In addition, in Scotland: "We played fair in giving you a referendum!"
Add this to "Only the Conservatives will give you a referendum on Europe", and you have two powerful messages for Conservative MPs and PPCs to play with, whether you agree with them or not.
Great plan for EV4EL from the Economist . Make it PROPORTIONAL so CON wouldn't, as currently, have 56% of English seats on 39.6% of votes http://econ.st/1rqP2m5
Great so let's design the system to stop the Tories getting in.
Labour were fine with FPTP when they thought they were going to get in with 35% of the vote, but now it looks like the Tories will instead they start shouting about how it isn't proportional.
Absolutely laughable.
Why are you surprised Labour is full of liars and cheats?
The only other possibility of a "near term" indy vote is if, somehow, the Westmisnter parties fuck up their plans to give Scotland their shitebag passel of new powers.
.
This will be interesting to watch. It's obvious that the chances of resolving the English issues before the general election are in the region of nil. So Tory MPs will be asked to devolve more power to Scotland with only a vague promise that England will get something after the election. This seems likely to lead to a massive rebellion and Cameron will only get it through with the support of the Lib Dems and Labour.
"This seems likely to lead to a massive rebellion"
I'm not so sure, mainly due to the parliamentary timetable. This is likely to happen in the early months of next year, when MPs thoughts will be on the GE and keeping their own seats. What good would a massive party-splitting argument do at that time? It would just put their own seats in jeopardy. Instead, they will be able to direct their, and the public's, anger at Labour for blocking 'fairness'.
In addition, this idea gives the Conservative MPs a great line to trot out during the GE in England:
"Only the Conservatives can bring English votes for English laws."
Which will be modified in the rest of the UK to: "Only the Conservatives bring fairness to all the countries!" In addition, in Scotland: "We played fair in giving you a referendum!"
Add this to "Only the Conservatives will give you a referendum on Europe", and you have two powerful messages for Conservative MPs and PPCs to play with, whether you agree with them or not.
Much more powerful if they have already delivered agreed proposals for Scotland, not kicked it into the long grass in a fit of pique in order to look tougher to the English. Proves they deliver. Nothing about the messages they want to present for the GE requires delaying the Scottish proposals further, which is the clear intention for some reason.
Anyway, I'm off to play Wasteland 2 for a couple of hours - came out on referendum day, so it kind of slipped past me. Also I was only 2 when the first one came out.
What is so difficult about EV4EL other than Labour doesn't like it for self interest reasons?
For over a century we have had legislation which is designated as UK wide, Scottish, English, Welsh, Northern Irish etc. Each Act states where it is to apply.
It would be very simple for the Speaker and his deputies to designate legislation as English only and rule Scots, Welsh and N Irish MPs should not participate in its consideration. Pre 1998 the Scottish legislation used to be dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee and then basically rubber stamped by the full HoC.
I watched Chuka this morning and with Andrew Neil. What a pompous little oaf he really is. He can name the SLAB leader and the very bright Kezia Dugdale but has no idea who any of the other 30+ SLAB MSPs are and then expects us to believe Scotland is important to the Labour leadership. He clearly doesn't like to visit the riff raff too often in case he gets muck on his little privileged rich boy shoes. He is far more of a toff than any Tory Bullingdon club member.
Great plan for EV4EL from the Economist . Make it PROPORTIONAL so CON wouldn't, as currently, have 56% of English seats on 39.6% of votes http://econ.st/1rqP2m5
Great so let's design the system to stop the Tories getting in.
Labour were fine with FPTP when they thought they were going to get in with 35% of the vote, but now it looks like the Tories will instead they start shouting about how it isn't proportional.
Absolutely laughable.
Why are you surprised Labour is full of liars and cheats?
I suppose it's the end justifying the means. Or is it the means justifying the ends I can never remember.
Basically as long as it gets them into power or at least stops the Tories from doing so then it can be defended on moral grounds regardless of what it is.
Mr. Observer, you speak as if FPTP is some evil mechanism whereby people's views are ignored and politicians emerge via a sort of Magic 8-Ball system of election. It isn't. It's a perfectly sound system which delivers stronger governments, which is in the national interest.
Parties 'working together' means jettisoning manifesto pledges left, right and centre with the bulletproof pretext of 'coalition'. FPTP means when manifesto pledges are broken by a majority government the Government can be held to account [yes, we have a coalition now, but that's very unusual].
In the four/five party system we now have FPTP would mean the views of millions of English voters going virtually unrepresented in an English parliament. For me that is a much more important issue than whether a party that gets 35% of the vote can fully implement its manifesto.
Great plan for EV4EL from the Economist . Make it PROPORTIONAL so CON wouldn't, as currently, have 56% of English seats on 39.6% of votes http://econ.st/1rqP2m5
Great so let's design the system to stop the Tories getting in.
Labour were fine with FPTP when they thought they were going to get in with 35% of the vote, but now it looks like the Tories will instead they start shouting about how it isn't proportional.
Absolutely laughable.
Is The Economist Labour now? That is news.
However, if EV4EL is about fairness - what is fair about a scenario in which a party that got 35% of the vote blocking legislation backed by parties that may have got 50% of the vote?
The way they have signed up to Europe and the trendy hobby horses of green and gay issues, they are certainly no longer even a remotely conservative magazine.
And they have also found that most elusive of beasts, the moderate political Islamist.
"Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax! "
Indeed - if you don't have a constitutional convention in which the issues are settled by cross-party agreement what will happen is piecemeal change decided by whoever is in government to its advantage.
Except the 'constitutional convention' Miliband proposes is a stitch-up from the very start, thus negating that argument.
Can you link to the details so that we can see if you are right? You may well be, but I have not seen them published anywhere so can't make a call. Where did you find them?
Miliband's already said that any change would devolve more power to the regions and a decentralised England, and that's likely to be the case as the stupid committees he is setting up are all regionally-based.
If he truly wanted to get to the bottom of our constitutional mess, he would leave everything on the table, including the status quo and an English parliament.
"Don't complain when Labour then give more powers to 'city regions', thereby allowing big Labour cities to dominate the surrounding leafy Tory suburbs and crank up Council tax! "
Indeed - if you don't have a constitutional convention in which the issues are settled by cross-party agreement what will happen is piecemeal change decided by whoever is in government to its advantage.
SO there is the small matter of Labour having to win an election first and on current viewing that is as likely as Michael Foot getting a landslide in 1983.
Incidentally the SNP is claiming 10,000 new members since Thursday. It is going to be a bloodbath in the Labour heartland next May. Glasgow might even see the unthinkable and Labour lose the odd safe seat.
Mr. Observer, you speak as if FPTP is some evil mechanism whereby people's views are ignored and politicians emerge via a sort of Magic 8-Ball system of election. It isn't. It's a perfectly sound system which delivers stronger governments, which is in the national interest.
Parties 'working together' means jettisoning manifesto pledges left, right and centre with the bulletproof pretext of 'coalition'. FPTP means when manifesto pledges are broken by a majority government the Government can be held to account [yes, we have a coalition now, but that's very unusual].
Which is why we should have an elected upper House, for the whole UK, elected by PR, based on large regions. The Commons could become an English Parliament. Everyone's happy.except Scottish MPs
Great plan for EV4EL from the Economist . Make it PROPORTIONAL so CON wouldn't, as currently, have 56% of English seats on 39.6% of votes http://econ.st/1rqP2m5
Great so let's design the system to stop the Tories getting in.
Labour were fine with FPTP when they thought they were going to get in with 35% of the vote, but now it looks like the Tories will instead they start shouting about how it isn't proportional.
Absolutely laughable.
Why are you surprised Labour is full of liars and cheats?
Slowly hacking my way through the Sunday papers. PBers might be interested to know that Dominic Lawson in Sunday Times argues for JohnO's recent idea of using the Northern Irish model to solve EV4EL, i.e. reduce the number of Scots MPs. I don't think it'll work - but the debate is clearly to be had.
Comments
http://gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/leaves/long-grass-2-DHD.jpg
In the Election Game competition, where winner doesn't take all, I estimated 44.56%.
NB the difference.
a) I doubt Cameron can pull together enough of his own party behind any proposals he puts together, it has become apparent that a significant small bunch are quite happy to see the Tories fail miserably if it means for definite Cameron will be gone.
b) nothing can help the LDs in Scotland so I suspect their strategy overall will be to try and copy Labour but be even more Labour than them if that makes sense, to try and get tactical votes from them in England, so will fall in line with them.
Thank you for the congratulations.
Whilst I had the exact YES % vote, I over estimated the turnout by 3.71% and others had a much closer combined score.
As I have previously posted, it has always seemed to me that as the union was mutually agreed between Scotland and rUK, the rUK should also have been voting whether or not to break the union.
Following the referendum we could do with some clear principles about which criteria to use for determining whether political decisions are best made at EU, UK, country, county or district level. We could certainly do without an additional regional level being introduced in England.
Thanks to Mike for founding and runnig the site; thanks to you all for the knowledgeable and thoughtful posts; and good luck with your political betting.
But Benedict is brilliant.
I'm far from clear as to why the introduction of more powers to Holyrood needs to be conditional on English votes for English Laws (the Knievel Principle). The two seem to me to be disconnected in the short term - the pledge for extra powers for Holyrood was just that without any reference to EWNI (as far as I recall).
The question of English devolution needs to go far beyond EV4EL which is just a starting point and needs to address some fundamental questions about how England should be governed and the relationship and distribution of powers between some form of England-only law making body and the network of democratically elected and accountable local authorities which already exist.
One of the principles of devolving power has to be to repatriate as much of that power as possible to the local level.
My first concern is that the Conservatives, who have shown themselves in the past to be inherent centralisers and, for example, won't allow a Tory heartland like Surrey to set its own Council Tax, are only interested in creating a law-making body which (they may believe) provides a permanent majority for them and a potential blocking minority against any future UK Labour majority Government.
My second concern is that Labour, who have shown themselves in the past to be inherent centralisers and, for example, won't allow a socialist heartland like Newham to set its own Council Tax, are only interested in preventing the creation of a law-making body which (they may believe) provides a permanent minority for them and a potential block against any future UK Labour majority Government.
The Scottish First Minister tells Sky News that No voters are "angry and hurt" because they have been "tricked"
http://news.sky.com/story/1339600/salmond-no-voters-tricked-by-westminster
On a similar note, it is highly amusing that I have seen some comments from Yes supporters lamenting that the desperate rush north and union blitz from the Westminster leaders played a part in a push back to No, as I am sure they had stated it would only increase the Yes vote, but apparently now they're complaining that it worked?
@JohnRentoul: MT @johnmcternan Must read by Kenneth Roy on "totalitarian" court of King Alex: http://t.co/FgRerSancQ @IndyOnSunday
Suggests that without Salmond the 'next campaign' might be very different
Another campaign that also ended is dismal failure.
Awesome.
The powers that are proposed are basically meaningless nothing that in some cases are actually harmful to Scotland so should be easy to hand off but for some reason they seem to be making it hard for themselves.
If they can't get it together to hand over "new powers" in a coupleof years then they will piss off a significant percentage of No voters - I think it was 25% who said their primary reason for voting No was that more powers were forthcoming.
I don't see why the Tories cannot push through with the Scottish powers timetable as agreed, everyone wins as they are shown to have kept their word, and he can present Tory proposals for England Wales and NI in time for the GE so he can show he is sticking up for all of them with the proof of acting quickly and keeping his word that the Scottish powers devolution timetable being kept to would enable.
The only benefit I see to pushing the timetable of the Scottish powers onto England is to try to appear as England's champion, but by delaying in Scotland they would surely be underminding any Tory revival hopes in Scotland and Wales by delaying things, to almost no gain in England as it is not as though the Labour heartlands are suddenly going to turn against Labour for being anti-English (and if they do, they would go UKIP before Tory).
I doubt they'll poll this next year, but they should still comfortably secure their best performance at a Westminster election since the 1970s, and possibly their best-ever performance (currently Oct 1974, 11 seats, 30% of the vote).
58% of UK voters want English votes for English laws, with only 22% opposed and the figures were the same regardless of whether they lived in Scotland or England.
However, while 40% of UK voters support Devomax, 38% are opposed, a much narrower margin than EVEL
43% want the Barnett formula abolished, 32% revised by independent experts
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11111364/Six-in-10-voters-back-Camerons-call-for-English-home-rule.html
Southampton,Aston Villa, Swansea, Leicester West Ham and Hull would all be in the top half and Liverpool,Man Utd, Everton and Newcastle would all be in the bottom half
They lost the referendum of their lifetimes by a clear margin.
Labour were fine with FPTP when they thought they were going to get in with 35% of the vote, but now it looks like the Tories will instead they start shouting about how it isn't proportional.
Absolutely laughable.
I give it less than 10 years before there's a new vote. Perhaps that one will be organised without Westminster backing however.
Our finishing is getting better, we squandered a few good chances against Arsenal and Chelsea.
On MUFC: selling all your best defenders and spending £60 million on a striker is not a good plan!
When the 'big two' get sub 65%, then PR makes much more sense. Favouring strong government is fine. But only when it does not result in parties getting sizeable majorities on barely a third of the vote (see Labour 2005).
I would have thought that the rise of UKIP on the right should make everyone (with the exception of die hard Labour supporters) keen on some form of PR.
Ben (@Jamin2g)
21/09/2014 17:00
. pic.twitter.com/aGkpddcEbU
The tone of it amazes me where they seem to think that they are morally right to prevent England being run by the party that got the most votes.
If the situations were reversed with the Tories getting a majority off Scottish votes the left would be screaming blue murder about it.
However, if EV4EL is about fairness - what is fair about a scenario in which a party that got 35% of the vote blocking legislation backed by parties that may have got 50% of the vote?
These points are all entirely valid. But they risk making Labour look as self-interested as the Conservatives.
It risks looking that way because that is the way it is. I think taking a slower, longer look at the English issue is necessary and appropriate, but Labour's objections to such constitutional changes, and solutions they suggest, will be just as concerned with securing their advantage as the Tories. The urgency of the issues for each is dependent on how much they feel a particular solution benefits them, even if they might be totally right on the principle depending on the issue.
Mr. Sulphate, well quite.
But Labour saying that if EV4EL goes through then we have to change the system to PR and break England up into regions, but if it doesn't go through we'll keep the system because it suits us is absolutely ridiculous.
I think a coalition between the 2nd and 4th most popular parties might be the catalyst for change after the election next year. Although in that case I still can't see Labour agreeing to it despite their current bleating about lack of proportionality. The system is only unfair unless they are the ones benefiting from it.
Between 2010-11 and 2011-12 Scottish Income Tax take decreased by 110 million pounds.
National Insurance Contributions increased by 470 million pounds
Geographic Share of oil increased by 1.7 billion pounds
Overall Tax Receipts for Scotland were up 3.4 billion pounds but Income Tax was down. In a world where Scotland gets "control" over income tax that could see a reduction in Scotland's budget despite an overall increase in tax take.
And it goes both ways, from 11-12 to 12-13 overall Tax Receipts were down but income tax was up - should that really result in a budget increase?
Giving control of income tax without control of other revenue streams result in perverse incentives for governance.
It's the idea that it is unfair when just applied to England, but fine when applied to the whole of the UK that is ridiculous.
As is the connection to EV4EL of which there isn't any whatsoever.
According to my Betfair P&L the 2 categories that put me in overall profit are golf and politics. Sounds a good plan for year 2 of retirement. Hoping KKR win this afternoon to put cricket into profit.
The Tories pitch is English Votes for English Laws, which Labour oppose.
Labours' pitch is Labour Votes for English Laws.
Which of these might English voters prefer at the GE?
Ed Balls left an opponent with a bloodied eye in the annual party conference football match between Labour and political journalists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29301287
@paulwaugh: Hunt warns his party that it has to win "Middle England" seats. Didn't mention English votes for English laws but we got the drift.
Indeed - if you don't have a constitutional convention in which the issues are settled by cross-party agreement what will happen is piecemeal change decided by whoever is in government to its advantage.
'I'm far from clear as to why the introduction of more powers to Holyrood needs to be conditional on English votes for English Laws (the Knievel Principle)
Because English voters have been short changed & ignored for the past 15 years.
English votes for English laws is a reasonable stopgap measure.
Balkanising Britain for Labour's petty political advantage and gerrymandering electoral systems is not.
As for an English Parliament with an alternative electoral system: it would depend on the approach. I am a strong supporter of FPTP and would never back PR (a recipe for weakness, coalition, compromise and lowest common denominator politics). An alternative system *might* be acceptable.
Can't someone on the left just be honest and admit they don't want EV4EL because they don't want the Tories to have power in England.
Parties 'working together' means jettisoning manifesto pledges left, right and centre with the bulletproof pretext of 'coalition'. FPTP means when manifesto pledges are broken by a majority government the Government can be held to account [yes, we have a coalition now, but that's very unusual].
I'm not so sure, mainly due to the parliamentary timetable. This is likely to happen in the early months of next year, when MPs thoughts will be on the GE and keeping their own seats. What good would a massive party-splitting argument do at that time? It would just put their own seats in jeopardy. Instead, they will be able to direct their, and the public's, anger at Labour for blocking 'fairness'.
In addition, this idea gives the Conservative MPs a great line to trot out during the GE in England:
"Only the Conservatives can bring English votes for English laws."
Which will be modified in the rest of the UK to: "Only the Conservatives bring fairness to all the countries!" In addition, in Scotland: "We played fair in giving you a referendum!"
Add this to "Only the Conservatives will give you a referendum on Europe", and you have two powerful messages for Conservative MPs and PPCs to play with, whether you agree with them or not.
Why are you surprised Labour is full of liars and cheats?
Anyway, I'm off to play Wasteland 2 for a couple of hours - came out on referendum day, so it kind of slipped past me. Also I was only 2 when the first one came out.
For over a century we have had legislation which is designated as UK wide, Scottish, English, Welsh, Northern Irish etc. Each Act states where it is to apply.
It would be very simple for the Speaker and his deputies to designate legislation as English only and rule Scots, Welsh and N Irish MPs should not participate in its consideration. Pre 1998 the Scottish legislation used to be dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee and then basically rubber stamped by the full HoC.
I watched Chuka this morning and with Andrew Neil. What a pompous little oaf he really is. He can name the SLAB leader and the very bright Kezia Dugdale but has no idea who any of the other 30+ SLAB MSPs are and then expects us to believe Scotland is important to the Labour leadership. He clearly doesn't like to visit the riff raff too often in case he gets muck on his little privileged rich boy shoes. He is far more of a toff than any Tory Bullingdon club member.
Basically as long as it gets them into power or at least stops the Tories from doing so then it can be defended on moral grounds regardless of what it is.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/scottish-independence-referendum-frankie-boyle-on-no-vote-to-be-fair-ive-always-hated-scotland-9743698.html
The way they have signed up to Europe and the trendy hobby horses of green and gay issues, they are certainly no longer even a remotely conservative magazine.
And they have also found that most elusive of beasts, the moderate political Islamist.
If he truly wanted to get to the bottom of our constitutional mess, he would leave everything on the table, including the status quo and an English parliament.
http://labourlist.org/2014/09/miliband-calls-for-uk-constitutional-convention-and-the-whole-country-will-have-a-say-not-just-politicians/
Incidentally the SNP is claiming 10,000 new members since Thursday. It is going to be a bloodbath in the Labour heartland next May. Glasgow might even see the unthinkable and Labour lose the odd safe seat.
Everyone's happy.except Scottish MPs