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.
Well then if a party is democratically elected and wants to do this then they can go ahead and do it.
But in the meantime let's fix the problem with EV4EL that has absolutely nothing to do with proportional representation whatsoever.
It's also got nothing to do with reforming the House of Lords or breaking up the UK into regions either.
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.
PR by it's very nature centralises power and makes party leaderships more powerful. It takes power away from the voter and hands it to the vested interest who control parties. It is the antithesis of everything those who want decentralism such as an English Parliament believe in.
I would accept a constituency based AV run off system as a replacement for FPTP but PR never. We need to disempower the establishment party leaderships and their vested interests not give them more power.
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"?
It is potentially a big mistake, in my opinion. The Nats would be much better off sticking to their calm, sensible, democratic pompous stuff - we have listened, and we will learn, blah blah.
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.
Sensible Scots will be thinking: Hold on, let's see what these new powers are like, and how they work, we don't need another three years of national angst all over again.
I predict the Nats will realise this, when their fury abates - and go quiet.
But the nationalist's aim is for Scotland to be independent, not for Scotland to be wealthy. The referendum showed quite clearly that the more economically depressed the place, the higher the vote for independence. Thus they have a huge incentive to scare off businesses and push the country into depression. The more places they can make like Glasgow and Dundee, the better they'll do next time.
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
This piece is possibly a joke. Far too complex to be remotely implementable.
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.
Well then if a party is democratically elected and wants to do this then they can go ahead and do it.
But in the meantime let's fix the problem with EV4EL that has absolutely nothing to do with proportional representation whatsoever.
It's also got nothing to do with reforming the House of Lords or breaking up the UK into regions either.
I like all you guys who complained about Labour's devolution being messy and rushed, then say we should rush through a messy EV4EL reform
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
No you need a clear structure with an English Parliament and a Federal Government split across a lower and upper house. Trying to shoehorn our democratic needs into the current structure in a different way just won't work
As for large regions that is the recipe for dis-empowering voters. Its anti-democratic!
"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.
There's always the possibility mentioned earlier, that they pass the Scottish part of the bill (or separate bill) at the last minute, having squeezed every ounce of publicity to show that Labour blocked EVEL and does not care for English voters.
Which is a message that may play well in Scotland and Wales, as well as England.
If the Conservatives cannot get EVEL through, then a long and protracted opposition to fairness from Labour would be brilliant ammunition in the GE.
That way, the Conservatives get to give the Scottish people what they promised, and show Labour to be the undemocratic so-and-sos they are.
Played right, "Only the Conservatives can bring English votes for English laws." could play well at the GE.
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.
PR by it's very nature centralises power and makes party leaderships more powerful. It takes power away from the voter and hands it to the vested interest who control parties. It is the antithesis of everything those who want decentralism such as an English Parliament believe in.
I would accept a constituency based AV run off system as a replacement for FPTP but PR never. We need to disempower the establishment party leaderships and their vested interests not give them more power.
STV with, say, three seats per constituency could allow for a suitable halfway house. We should also remember that in the UK as a whole, the Tories have 33% and UKIP have 13%. In England, that would likely be a majority. The right has nothing to fear from PR.
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.
Well then if a party is democratically elected and wants to do this then they can go ahead and do it.
But in the meantime let's fix the problem with EV4EL that has absolutely nothing to do with proportional representation whatsoever.
It's also got nothing to do with reforming the House of Lords or breaking up the UK into regions either.
I like all you guys who complained about Labour's devolution being messy and rushed, then say we should rush through a messy EV4EL reform
Great so all we need is a quote from me saying I want to see legislation being messy and rushed and your post will make sense.
"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.
He has expressed an opinion on what he would like to see. I cannot see the problem with that. The point about a Constitutional Convention is that all views are discussed and a consensus is reached that all parties can buy into.
Daily Mail now saying Salmond warning Scotland could declare independence with no referendum, as it was only one method to achieve it, the destination clear, the only debate on the timescale and method
'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.'
Don't need any more excuses to delay,if additional powers for Scotland can be sorted in short order so can EV4EL.
"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.
He has expressed an opinion on what he would like to see. I cannot see the problem with that. The point about a Constitutional Convention is that all views are discussed and a consensus is reached that all parties can buy into.
Has he said that English regions would have the same powers as Scotland, though? Would it really make sense to have different income tax rates and education systems in Essex, Kent and London?
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?
When considering large regions you just have to look how bloody useless MEP's are to know that using large regions is a complete and utter nonsense. Most voters don't even have a clue who their representatives have some sort of dialogue with them.
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.
PR by it's very nature centralises power and makes party leaderships more powerful. It takes power away from the voter and hands it to the vested interest who control parties. It is the antithesis of everything those who want decentralism such as an English Parliament believe in.
I would accept a constituency based AV run off system as a replacement for FPTP but PR never. We need to disempower the establishment party leaderships and their vested interests not give them more power.
What I want to see is that if a party such as UKIP has the support of 20% of voters in England that is reflected in the make up of an English parliament. What I think is wrong is that Labour might get 30% of the votes but over 40% of the seats, while UKIP gets one or two seats for its 20%.
Daily Mail now saying Salmond warning Scotland could declare independence with no referendum, as it was only one method to achieve it, the destination clear, the only debate on the timescale and method
It was only a matter of time before UDI started being mentioned. Why because Labour want to continue to f*** the English over. It's a f***ing disgrace. They should lock Miliband in the Tower for treason if his intransigence continues!
"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.
He has expressed an opinion on what he would like to see. I cannot see the problem with that. The point about a Constitutional Convention is that all views are discussed and a consensus is reached that all parties can buy into.
Has he said that English regions would have the same powers as Scotland, though? Would it really make sense to have different income tax rates and education systems in Essex, Kent and London?
No - and I would expect that to be made clear at a Constitutional Convention.
"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.
SNIP
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.
There's always the possibility mentioned earlier, that they pass the Scottish part of the bill (or separate bill) at the last minute, having squeezed every ounce of publicity to show that Labour blocked EVEL and does not care for English voters.
Which is a message that may play well in Scotland and Wales, as well as England.
If the Conservatives cannot get EVEL through, then a long and protracted opposition to fairness from Labour would be brilliant ammunition in the GE.
That way, the Conservatives get to give the Scottish people what they promised, and show Labour to be the undemocratic so-and-sos they are.
Played right, "Only the Conservatives can bring English votes for English laws." could play well at the GE.
Right. The Tories should connect them throughout most of the next year and then split them at the last minute. That way Labour will have spent a year threatening to block devomax for Scotland, losing votes to the SNP in Scotland, they won't be able to blame the Tories for stopping it going through, and simultaneously have blocked new powers for the English just a month before the election.
Are Labour really going into the next election with no plans to reduce immigration, opposition to repatriation and a referendum with the EU, and supporting the Scots and Welsh deciding on English matters? If so, it would be very easy to connect Ed Miliband with the views of his father:
"The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world ... When you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show them how things are."
'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.'
Don't need any more excuses to delay,if additional powers for Scotland can be sorted in short order so can EV4EL.
No, because the Scottish ones are agreed in principle by all the parties with only the details needing to be sorted out, whereas the English ones have no agreement even in principle on what sort of things are needed. In essence, the Scottish powers have already been partly sorted out and this is the wrap up period, whereas the English ones have not even entered general discussions yet. How can they possibly be finalized in the same amount of time.
It's like when you get competing planning applications for, say, a large supermarket in a town, and they may both want (or one of them anyway) to have them determined by the council authorities at the same time as they claim it would not be fair for one to be approved first. But while they might be preferable, it might not be reasonable or achievable if one was submitted a lot sooner or, whichever was first, one is more complicated than the other and will not be ready to be determined for months and months beyond the other one.
"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.
He has expressed an opinion on what he would like to see. I cannot see the problem with that. The point about a Constitutional Convention is that all views are discussed and a consensus is reached that all parties can buy into.
Has he said that English regions would have the same powers as Scotland, though? Would it really make sense to have different income tax rates and education systems in Essex, Kent and London?
Why not? The US has different tax rates in each state. Devolution will create different systems in different areas of the country - if that's what people in those areas want then I can't see why central government should stand in their way.
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.
PR by it's very nature centralises power and makes party leaderships more powerful. It takes power away from the voter and hands it to the vested interest who control parties. It is the antithesis of everything those who want decentralism such as an English Parliament believe in.
I would accept a constituency based AV run off system as a replacement for FPTP but PR never. We need to disempower the establishment party leaderships and their vested interests not give them more power.
STV with, say, three seats per constituency could allow for a suitable halfway house. We should also remember that in the UK as a whole, the Tories have 33% and UKIP have 13%. In England, that would likely be a majority. The right has nothing to fear from PR.
Spot on. If England votes for right wing parties then that is what England should get. Under FPTP England could well end up with a Labour government which has less than 35% of the vote even when the Tories and UKIP combined get over 50%. And all Labour would need to do is govern for that 35% in order to stay in power.
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.
PR by it's very nature centralises power and makes party leaderships more powerful. It takes power away from the voter and hands it to the vested interest who control parties. It is the antithesis of everything those who want decentralism such as an English Parliament believe in.
I would accept a constituency based AV run off system as a replacement for FPTP but PR never. We need to disempower the establishment party leaderships and their vested interests not give them more power.
What I want to see is that if a party such as UKIP has the support of 20% of voters in England that is reflected in the make up of an English parliament. What I think is wrong is that Labour might get 30% of the votes but over 40% of the seats, while UKIP gets one or two seats for its 20%.
I am a UKIP member and I am damned if I am going to compromise the integrity of our electoral system further allowing party leaderships more power for the sake of self-serving gain. The people not my party comes first! Self indulgence is what Labour and Libdems do and I view them with disgust!
If UKIP is good enough they will win whatever the rules of the game!
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.
PR by it's very nature centralises power and makes party leaderships more powerful. It takes power away from the voter and hands it to the vested interest who control parties. It is the antithesis of everything those who want decentralism such as an English Parliament believe in.
I would accept a constituency based AV run off system as a replacement for FPTP but PR never. We need to disempower the establishment party leaderships and their vested interests not give them more power.
What I want to see is that if a party such as UKIP has the support of 20% of voters in England that is reflected in the make up of an English parliament. What I think is wrong is that Labour might get 30% of the votes but over 40% of the seats, while UKIP gets one or two seats for its 20%.
I am a UKIP member and I am damned if I am going to compromise the integrity of our electoral system further allowing party leaderships more power for the sake of self-serving gain. The people not my party comes first! Self indulgence is what Labour and Libdems do and I view them with disgust!
If UKIP is good enough the will win whatever the rules of the game!
Under the rules you favour UKIP will never win. I don't think the rules are fair. We will have to disagree.
Socrates There already are, different councils set different council tax levels, and on education Kent has grammar schools, neighbouring Sussex does not
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.
This argument rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitutional position. Merely because legislation in Westminster extends only to one jurisdiction does not mean that it is not a reserved matter. For instance, some provisions of the Extradition Act 2003 extend only to Scotland, but extradition, is for obvious reasons, a reserved matter, albeit some executive functions are devolved to the Scottish Ministers in Scotland. What the Speaker would be required to certify is whether legislation extending to England and Wales, if proposed in Scotland or Northern Ireland, would fall within the legislative competence of a devolved assembly. That is a complex question of constitutional law, which the Speaker is not equipped to determine. The only logical solution is a separate English Parliament with a defined legislative competence.
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.
PR by it's very nature centralises power and makes party leaderships more powerful. It takes power away from the voter and hands it to the vested interest who control parties. It is the antithesis of everything those who want decentralism such as an English Parliament believe in.
I would accept a constituency based AV run off system as a replacement for FPTP but PR never. We need to disempower the establishment party leaderships and their vested interests not give them more power.
What I want to see is that if a party such as UKIP has the support of 20% of voters in England that is reflected in the make up of an English parliament. What I think is wrong is that Labour might get 30% of the votes but over 40% of the seats, while UKIP gets one or two seats for its 20%.
I am a UKIP member and I am damned if I am going to compromise the integrity of our electoral system further allowing party leaderships more power for the sake of self-serving gain. The people not my party comes first! Self indulgence is what Labour and Libdems do and I view them with disgust!
If UKIP is good enough they will win whatever the rules of the game!
Under STV you can pick your individual candidate from the party list. Much better than FPTP which is a party list of one.
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.
PR by it's very nature centralises power and makes party leaderships more powerful. It takes power away from the voter and hands it to the vested interest who control parties. It is the antithesis of everything those who want decentralism such as an English Parliament believe in.
I would accept a constituency based AV run off system as a replacement for FPTP but PR never. We need to disempower the establishment party leaderships and their vested interests not give them more power.
What I want to see is that if a party such as UKIP has the support of 20% of voters in England that is reflected in the make up of an English parliament. What I think is wrong is that Labour might get 30% of the votes but over 40% of the seats, while UKIP gets one or two seats for its 20%.
I am a UKIP member and I am damned if I am going to compromise the integrity of our electoral system further allowing party leaderships more power for the sake of self-serving gain. The people not my party comes first! Self indulgence is what Labour and Libdems do and I view them with disgust!
If UKIP is good enough the will win whatever the rules of the game!
Under the rules you favour UKIP will never win I don't think the rules are fair. We will have to disagree.
I bet they said that about Labour 100 hundred years ago. There is no need to cheat by fixing the rules to best suit us. Thats what Labour do.....
"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.
He has expressed an opinion on what he would like to see. I cannot see the problem with that. The point about a Constitutional Convention is that all views are discussed and a consensus is reached that all parties can buy into.
Has he said that English regions would have the same powers as Scotland, though? Would it really make sense to have different income tax rates and education systems in Essex, Kent and London?
Why not? The US has different tax rates in each state. Devolution will create different systems in different areas of the country - if that's what people in those areas want then I can't see why central government should stand in their way.
But people in those areas don't want them. In opinion polls, it is quite clear an English parliament is far more popular than regional parliaments. No-one identifies with the East of England region, unlike the US, where people are in states that have long-held historic identities.
Played right, "Only the Conservatives can bring English votes for English laws." could play well at the GE.
It won;t. Why? because a couple of months before the election the tories will have trooped through the lobbies to do the exact opposite. IE give scotland more autonomy, power and money for nothing in return. The very act of doing that will totally discredit the tories claim to be the party of england.
People judge politicians by what they do not what they say.
Thankfully cream puff red tory arguments like this aren;t being listened to, by the look of it. Crosby plays hardball. At last the conservatives are getting aggressive.
"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.
He has expressed an opinion on what he would like to see. I cannot see the problem with that. The point about a Constitutional Convention is that all views are discussed and a consensus is reached that all parties can buy into.
Has he said that English regions would have the same powers as Scotland, though? Would it really make sense to have different income tax rates and education systems in Essex, Kent and London?
No - and I would expect that to be made clear at a Constitutional Convention.
No - all he wants is to give power to labour satraps. He still wants to aggrandise power to Labour Scottish MPs to pass English only laws. We do not need or want vast expensive and ultimately pointless changes to English local government. The issues in play are national issues. The issues are Scottish Labour MPs passing laws on the English NHS when they have no say in the Scottish Health Service in their own constituency.
I grow tired of your crude attempts to insult our intelligence. I've news for you, you fool nobody.
Oh, and for those proposing to break up English cities from their country, why are they not proposing the same for Glasgow?
It's quite clear that Scotland is a sacred national unit to such people while England can be carved up as will. Lefties just have as much distaste for England as Ralph Miliband did. (SouthamObserver and Dan Hodges excluded.)
"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.
He has expressed an opinion on what he would like to see. I cannot see the problem with that. The point about a Constitutional Convention is that all views are discussed and a consensus is reached that all parties can buy into.
Urrrm no, he is prejudging and prejudicing it in several ways. Firstly, he is making the committees regional. Secondly, he is defining who will sit on the committees. Thirdly, the committees are set up to look at how the regions can be strengthened:
Each region will produce a report outlining a series of recommendations, covering: how sub-national devolution can be strengthened how the regions can be given more of a voice in our political system how we can give further voice to regional and national culture and identity
As usual, Miliband has got things @rse about face. He has decided on a solution, and is trying to make the problem fit that solution.
The worst case of all will be if Ed Miliband forces devolution onto English regions, bypassing England itself, on a bill that's dependent on Scots and Welsh votes.
MofK Though Salmond did also say his preferred method was always by referendum, there was nothing to stop a future SNP government declaring UDI through the Scottish Parliament. However as Westminster would never recognise that it is an effective non-starter
@RuthDavidsonMSP Sorry for difficulties with the Scottish Conservative website- it's due to huge increase in traffic. We're fixing it. Hopefully back up soon
Hi all, long-time lurker delurking here! I love this forum, and the well-reasoned arguments presented here have several times helped me to formulate my own opinions about issues. I know you all got sick of the AV referendum discussions, but the accumulated arguments on both sides definitely helped me to understand the implications and influenced my vote.
I've seen lots of issues that I've felt strongly about come and go and get forgotten about by the great and the good, but this one feels a bit different. Friends at work who've never before mentioned a political issue in my hearing are spitting mad about the "vow" and the unfair English settlement. If they're talking about it now, it seems like this one might actually gain some proper traction and lead to genuine changes.
Two weeks ago I felt that it was right for Scotland to decide its own fate, and proud to live in a country where such a thing was possible. Then came the repugnant sight of the party leaders panicking and promising the world to the Scots without any reference to the people who would be affected by it. After that I thought that Cameron's position was untenable regardless of the referendum outcome. I'm still of that opinion - his only hope in my eyes is if he can deliver both EV4EL and a repeal of the barnett formula alongside further Scottish devolution. I don't think it should stop there, and I think an English parliament of some shape must be in our future.
Socrates There already are, different councils set different council tax levels, and on education Kent has grammar schools, neighbouring Sussex does not
That's a very minor educational change compared to having different curricula and qualifications in three areas that are all part of the same metropolitan economy.
Hi all, long-time lurker delurking here! I love this forum, and the well-reasoned arguments presented here have several times helped me to formulate my own opinions about issues. I know you all got sick of the AV referendum discussions, but the accumulated arguments on both sides definitely helped me to understand the implications and influenced my vote.
I've seen lots of issues that I've felt strongly about come and go and get forgotten about by the great and the good, but this one feels a bit different. Friends at work who've never before mentioned a political issue in my hearing are spitting mad about the "vow" and the unfair English settlement. If they're talking about it now, it seems like this one might actually gain some proper traction and lead to genuine changes.
Two weeks ago I felt that it was right for Scotland to decide its own fate, and proud to live in a country where such a thing was possible. Then came the repugnant sight of the party leaders panicking and promising the world to the Scots without any reference to the people who would be affected by it. After that I thought that Cameron's position was untenable regardless of the referendum outcome. I'm still of that opinion - his only hope in my eyes is if he can deliver both EV4EL and a repeal of the barnett formula alongside further Scottish devolution. I don't think it should stop there, and I think an English parliament of some shape must be in our future.
Welcome. Can I take it from your name that you are a female PBer? It's good to get more gender balance.
The worst case of all will be if Ed Miliband forces devolution onto English regions, bypassing England itself, on a bill that's dependent on Scots and Welsh votes.
He won't, he will increase the powers of combined authorities etc but is opposed to creating a new tier of regional government.Probably just give extra powers to any local authority grouping that had a million residents or something
Oh, and for those proposing to break up English cities from their country, why are they not proposing the same for Glasgow?
It's quite clear that Scotland is a sacred national unit to such people while England can be carved up as will. Lefties just have as much distaste for England as Ralph Miliband did. (SouthamObserver and Dan Hodges excluded.)
Yep, it's patent nonsense and would be even more inequitable to the English than the situation that exists at the moment. I particularly like the fact he mentions regional identity. Except, as discussed at length yesterday, most regions don't have one. Most counties do; most regions do not.
"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.
He has expressed an opinion on what he would like to see. I cannot see the problem with that. The point about a Constitutional Convention is that all views are discussed and a consensus is reached that all parties can buy into.
Has he said that English regions would have the same powers as Scotland, though? Would it really make sense to have different income tax rates and education systems in Essex, Kent and London?
No - and I would expect that to be made clear at a Constitutional Convention.
No - all he wants is to give power to labour satraps. He still wants to aggrandise power to Labour Scottish MPs to pass English only laws. We do not need or want vast expensive and ultimately pointless changes to English local government. The issues in play are national issues. The issues are Scottish Labour MPs passing laws on the English NHS when they have no say in the Scottish Health Service in their own constituency.
I grow tired of your crude attempts to insult our intelligence. I've news for you, you fool nobody.
I am sorry that you cannot engage with views that you do not hold and instead resort to the petty and the personal. Maybe you are better off just ignoring my posts.
Thread idea - Spurs or Hull, which will finish higher in the Premier League 2014/15.
Last season Spurs underperformed as their new 7 players needed time to gel, individuals not a team.... a year on we can see the sum is now less than the parts and they actually are worse.
Spurs appear in the same downtrend of teamwork, skill and talent since their star player Bale left.... much as the same happened to Labour after Blair.
t's quite clear that Scotland is a sacred national unit to such people while England can be carved up as will. Lefties just have as much distaste for England as Ralph Miliband did. (SouthamObserver and Dan Hodges excluded.)
If you think about it, since 1997 power has gradually leaked away from England to the EU, Scotland, Wales etc.
Labour were clearly absolutely horrified by the thatcher years, and determined they must never happen again, whatever the people wanted.
"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.
He has expressed an opinion on what he would like to see. I cannot see the problem with that. The point about a Constitutional Convention is that all views are discussed and a consensus is reached that all parties can buy into.
Urrrm no, he is prejudging and prejudicing it in several ways. Firstly, he is making the committees regional. Secondly, he is defining who will sit on the committees. Thirdly, the committees are set up to look at how the regions can be strengthened:
Each region will produce a report outlining a series of recommendations, covering: how sub-national devolution can be strengthened how the regions can be given more of a voice in our political system how we can give further voice to regional and national culture and identity
As usual, Miliband has got things @rse about face. He has decided on a solution, and is trying to make the problem fit that solution.
None of which precludes a decision being taken that devolution to the regions is not a good idea. However, it is probably a very good reason why the Constitutional Convention should take place until after the election as if Labour wins there is a mandate for it and if labour does not win it does not need to be held in the format Miliband suggests.
t's quite clear that Scotland is a sacred national unit to such people while England can be carved up as will. Lefties just have as much distaste for England as Ralph Miliband did. (SouthamObserver and Dan Hodges excluded.)
If you think about it, since 1997 power has gradually leaked away from England to the EU, Scotland, Wales etc.
Labour were clearly absolutely horrified by the thatcher years, and determined they must never happen again, whatever the people wanted.
And that's what they want to continue. No powers back from the EU. No powers back to England. And further endless immigration to dilute the Englishness of the country further.
Mr. Observer, I want an English Parliament with FPTP.
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.
PR by it's very nature centralises power and makes party leaderships more powerful. It takes power away from the voter and hands it to the vested interest who control parties. It is the antithesis of everything those who want decentralism such as an English Parliament believe in.
I would accept a constituency based AV run off system as a replacement for FPTP but PR never. We need to disempower the establishment party leaderships and their vested interests not give them more power.
What I want to see is that if a party such as UKIP has the support of 20% of voters in England that is reflected in the make up of an English parliament. What I think is wrong is that Labour might get 30% of the votes but over 40% of the seats, while UKIP gets one or two seats for its 20%.
I am a UKIP member and I am damned if I am going to compromise the integrity of our electoral system further allowing party leaderships more power for the sake of self-serving gain. The people not my party comes first! Self indulgence is what Labour and Libdems do and I view them with disgust!
If UKIP is good enough they will win whatever the rules of the game!
Under STV you can pick your individual candidate from the party list. Much better than FPTP which is a party list of one.
STV list systems require large regions Large regions are anti-democratic, being centralising and generally the list systems do not provide the consistently high quality candidates No. 1 in the list will be good, number 3 mediocre and number 5 likely crap (just look at the MEP situation) . AV Run off constituencies (with no party list systems) would be great. They are better than FPTP. That is the only voting change I would consider.
Now I didn't come on here to listen to Labour and Libdem supporters attempt to further corrupt our electoral system. We voted down voting system change just a couple of years ago. It should be off the agenda for a generation!
"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.
There's always the possibility mentioned earlier, that they pass the Scottish part of the bill (or separate bill) at the last minute, having squeezed every ounce of publicity to show that Labour blocked EVEL and does not care for English voters.
Which is a message that may play well in Scotland and Wales, as well as England.
If the Conservatives cannot get EVEL through, then a long and protracted opposition to fairness from Labour would be brilliant ammunition in the GE.
That way, the Conservatives get to give the Scottish people what they promised, and show Labour to be the undemocratic so-and-sos they are.
Played right, "Only the Conservatives can bring English votes for English laws." could play well at the GE.
Tories drone on about rigging the political system in the favour thanks to some stuff that only politicians are interested in.
Whilst Labour talk about the NHS and the escalating Cost of Living Crisis.
Hi all, long-time lurker delurking here! I love this forum, and the well-reasoned arguments presented here have several times helped me to formulate my own opinions about issues. I know you all got sick of the AV referendum discussions, but the accumulated arguments on both sides definitely helped me to understand the implications and influenced my vote.
I've seen lots of issues that I've felt strongly about come and go and get forgotten about by the great and the good, but this one feels a bit different. Friends at work who've never before mentioned a political issue in my hearing are spitting mad about the "vow" and the unfair English settlement. If they're talking about it now, it seems like this one might actually gain some proper traction and lead to genuine changes.
Two weeks ago I felt that it was right for Scotland to decide its own fate, and proud to live in a country where such a thing was possible. Then came the repugnant sight of the party leaders panicking and promising the world to the Scots without any reference to the people who would be affected by it. After that I thought that Cameron's position was untenable regardless of the referendum outcome. I'm still of that opinion - his only hope in my eyes is if he can deliver both EV4EL and a repeal of the barnett formula alongside further Scottish devolution. I don't think it should stop there, and I think an English parliament of some shape must be in our future.
Welcome. There's a serious shortage of rightwingers / Tories here.
A classic example of why the English regions are terrible for devolution is that of transport, which is devolved to Scotland. Both Crossrail and the proposed Crossrail 2 are commuter lines for a regional economy. Yet they would both cut across three different regions under the likely Lib/Lab proposal. Management and planning of such things would be a nightmare.
Hi all, long-time lurker delurking here! I love this forum, and the well-reasoned arguments presented here have several times helped me to formulate my own opinions about issues. I know you all got sick of the AV referendum discussions, but the accumulated arguments on both sides definitely helped me to understand the implications and influenced my vote.
I've seen lots of issues that I've felt strongly about come and go and get forgotten about by the great and the good, but this one feels a bit different. Friends at work who've never before mentioned a political issue in my hearing are spitting mad about the "vow" and the unfair English settlement. If they're talking about it now, it seems like this one might actually gain some proper traction and lead to genuine changes.
Two weeks ago I felt that it was right for Scotland to decide its own fate, and proud to live in a country where such a thing was possible. Then came the repugnant sight of the party leaders panicking and promising the world to the Scots without any reference to the people who would be affected by it. After that I thought that Cameron's position was untenable regardless of the referendum outcome. I'm still of that opinion - his only hope in my eyes is if he can deliver both EV4EL and a repeal of the barnett formula alongside further Scottish devolution. I don't think it should stop there, and I think an English parliament of some shape must be in our future.
Welcome. There's a serious shortage of rightwingers / Tories here.
We need more people with just one name, preferably a middle class one too.
Hi all, long-time lurker delurking here! I love this forum, and the well-reasoned arguments presented here have several times helped me to formulate my own opinions about issues. I know you all got sick of the AV referendum discussions, but the accumulated arguments on both sides definitely helped me to understand the implications and influenced my vote.
I've seen lots of issues that I've felt strongly about come and go and get forgotten about by the great and the good, but this one feels a bit different. Friends at work who've never before mentioned a political issue in my hearing are spitting mad about the "vow" and the unfair English settlement. If they're talking about it now, it seems like this one might actually gain some proper traction and lead to genuine changes.
Two weeks ago I felt that it was right for Scotland to decide its own fate, and proud to live in a country where such a thing was possible. Then came the repugnant sight of the party leaders panicking and promising the world to the Scots without any reference to the people who would be affected by it. After that I thought that Cameron's position was untenable regardless of the referendum outcome. I'm still of that opinion - his only hope in my eyes is if he can deliver both EV4EL and a repeal of the barnett formula alongside further Scottish devolution. I don't think it should stop there, and I think an English parliament of some shape must be in our future.
Welcome. There's a serious shortage of rightwingers / Tories here.
Supporting devolution for the English makes you a right-winger/Tory?
You've got a hell of a surprise coming next time you speak to some of the white working class.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the SNP have more MPs next year, and if the GE ends up with another coalition, a sizable block could wield disproportionate influence.
If they are going to try different tactics to expedite their objective, how might that play out in Westminster in terms of legislation on which they currently abstain?
"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.
There's always the possibility mentioned earlier, that they pass the Scottish part of the bill (or separate bill) at the last minute, having squeezed every ounce of publicity to show that Labour blocked EVEL and does not care for English voters.
Which is a message that may play well in Scotland and Wales, as well as England.
If the Conservatives cannot get EVEL through, then a long and protracted opposition to fairness from Labour would be brilliant ammunition in the GE.
That way, the Conservatives get to give the Scottish people what they promised, and show Labour to be the undemocratic so-and-sos they are.
Played right, "Only the Conservatives can bring English votes for English laws." could play well at the GE.
Tories drone on about rigging the political system in the favour thanks to some stuff that only politicians are interested in.
Whilst Labour talk about the NHS and the escalating Cost of Living Crisis.
Yeah, it'll go down a storm for your Party.
Will they include how they're going to break up the English NHS into regional devolved health services, a la Wales, when they talk about it?
But people in those areas don't want them. In opinion polls, it is quite clear an English parliament is far more popular than regional parliaments. No-one identifies with the East of England region, unlike the US, where people are in states that have long-held historic identities.
But the wisdom of opinion polls is not the only consideration. Most people do not give any thought to esoteric consitutional issues - their answers expressed through opinion polls are not considered opinions and opinion poll questions on these kinds of topics are generally leading and designed to achieve the answer that the organisation paying the pollster wants to hear. Opinion polling about the Welsh assembly was generally negative before it came into being, and the referendum achieved only a small majority, but now it exists it has a subsantial level of support. Opinion polling about the Scottish independence when the Indyref was first mooted showed an overwhelming majority against, but when the campaign got under way it became clear that once people began to think about the idea the actual result would be much closer. Politicians need to show some leadership and come up with new structures that will ensure the country will be well-governed in the long term and this cannot be done merely by consulting opinion polls and focus groups.
I see Ruth Davidson has tweeted out the Scottish Conservative site has also gone down due to a huge surge in traffic.
Noticed there had been an increased interest in the party (a fellow party member had mentioned to me the main office had been really busy) but, site going down? Hmm..
None of which precludes a decision being taken that devolution to the regions is not a good idea. However, it is probably a very good reason why the Constitutional Convention should take place until after the election as if Labour wins there is a mandate for it and if labour does not win it does not need to be held in the format Miliband suggests.
You must be joking! I mean, you really believe that bigwigs and nepotistic Labour people from the regions, when formed into regional groupings, will not see further powers to the regions as being vital?
He's not setting up any other committees, for instance ones to examine the other options, such as an English Parliament, EVEL or even the status quo. No, he's just set up committees based on one idea.
That's why you're finding this discussion difficult: the obvious line for Miliband to take was to hold a constitutional convention first, with none of this prejudicial rubbish. In fact, he might have been able to get the other party leaders to agree to it.
Instead he's chosen one option and skewed the convention in that direction. Impressively, he managed that in the first day.
It'd be like a boss of mine saying: "I want you to spend a month looking at the best language to write this project in. But I really like C++, and the team I'm giving you are all experts in C++"
The worst case of all will be if Ed Miliband forces devolution onto English regions, bypassing England itself, on a bill that's dependent on Scots and Welsh votes.
He won't, he will increase the powers of combined authorities etc but is opposed to creating a new tier of regional government.Probably just give extra powers to any local authority grouping that had a million residents or something
Which will manifestly fail to deal with the inconsistency, unless he's hoping to devolve education regulation and income tax to counties!
I had some difficulty in seperating left and right commentators here, but there is a simple test: good news for jobs, new construction starting - righties are pleased and energised - lefties couldn't care less.
But people in those areas don't want them. In opinion polls, it is quite clear an English parliament is far more popular than regional parliaments. No-one identifies with the East of England region, unlike the US, where people are in states that have long-held historic identities.
But the wisdom of opinion polls is not the only consideration. Most people do not give any thought to esoteric consitutional issues - their answers expressed through opinion polls are not considered opinions and opinion poll questions on these kinds of topics are generally leading and designed to achieve the answer that the organisation paying the pollster wants to hear. Opinion polling about the Welsh assembly was generally negative before it came into being, and the referendum achieved only a small majority, but now it exists it has a subsantial level of support. Opinion polling about the Scottish independence when the Indyref was first mooted showed an overwhelming majority against, but when the campaign got under way it became clear that once people began to think about the idea the actual result would be much closer. Politicians need to show some leadership and come up with new structures that will ensure the country will be well-governed in the long term and this cannot be done merely by consulting opinion polls and focus groups.
Good government does not entail breaking up the South East of England - the one area of the country with a booming regional economy - into three different bureaucracies and systems.
Right. The Tories should connect them throughout most of the next year and then split them at the last minute. That way Labour will have spent a year threatening to block devomax for Scotland, losing votes to the SNP in Scotland, they won't be able to blame the Tories for stopping it going through, and simultaneously have blocked new powers for the English just a month before the election.
The trouble with this approach is that it still leaves Scotland with devomax and the English with nothing but a worsening of the current unfair situation. If the Tories don't win the election then we're screwed. Even if they do, I don't have much confidence that they'll think it such a priority immediately after the election.
Some good news at least, and if he can take SO with him too.... Tory maj nailed on! Isabel Hardman@IsabelHardman·11 mins Eddie Izzard is going to tour marginal seats in run-up to election #lab14
Yes that campaigning failure, Eddie Izzard (Yes2RedKen, Yes2AV, Yes2 the euro, Yes2Gordon Brown2010).
Tories drone on about rigging the political system in the favour thanks to some stuff that only politicians are interested in.
Whilst Labour talk about the NHS and the escalating Cost of Living Crisis.
Yeah, it'll go down a storm for your Party.
Labour won't be talking about the Welsh NHS much, will they? In fact, I think they'll whistle, tap their feet and look the other way. Or propose a law whereby the entirety of Wales on the NHS map of Britain is covered by a "There be Dragons" sticker.
If you want Labour to go into the next election with a message of "English voters are less important than Welsh or Scottish voters", then good luck to you. It may not prove pivotal, but it may, and Miliband's initial foray into stemming the problem is ridiculous.
Oh, and BTW, I am not a Tory (tm). In fact, I wish I was, as I'd quite like to attend the selection meeting for the Conservative candidate in South Cambridgeshire. It'd be interesting to see what goes on, even if I cannot vote.
None of which precludes a decision being taken that devolution to the regions is not a good idea. However, it is probably a very good reason why the Constitutional Convention should take place until after the election as if Labour wins there is a mandate for it and if labour does not win it does not need to be held in the format Miliband suggests.
You must be joking! I mean, you really believe that bigwigs and nepotistic Labour people from the regions, when formed into regional groupings, will not see further powers to the regions as being vital?
He's not setting up any other committees, for instance ones to examine the other options, such as an English Parliament, EVEL or even the status quo. No, he's just set up committees based on one idea.
That's why you're finding this discussion difficult: the obvious line for Miliband to take was to hold a constitutional convention first, with none of this prejudicial rubbish. In fact, he might have been able to get the other party leaders to agree to it.
Instead he's chosen one option and skewed the convention in that direction. Impressively, he managed that in the first day.
It'd be like a boss of mine saying: "I want you to spend a month looking at the best language to write this project in. But I really like C++, and the team I'm giving you are all experts in C++"
It's Hobson's Choice.
I am not finding the discussion difficult. It's just that I do not have your visceral loathing for Labour and Miliband so I am not seeing malice in everything that they say or do. I have absolutely no problem in Miliband setting out where he stands on constitutional issues. It allows people to make a choice. As far as I can tell no detailed plans have yet been put forward by Labour and no committees have been established. Neither do we know how Miliband foresees the Constitutional Convention working - or how it will actually work (they are very possibly two different things). I happen to agree with him and Farage that one is needed, that is all.
"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.
There's always the possibility mentioned earlier, that they pass the Scottish part of the bill (or separate bill) at the last minute, having squeezed every ounce of publicity to show that Labour blocked EVEL and does not care for English voters.
Which is a message that may play well in Scotland and Wales, as well as England.
If the Conservatives cannot get EVEL through, then a long and protracted opposition to fairness from Labour would be brilliant ammunition in the GE.
That way, the Conservatives get to give the Scottish people what they promised, and show Labour to be the undemocratic so-and-sos they are.
Played right, "Only the Conservatives can bring English votes for English laws." could play well at the GE.
Tories drone on about rigging the political system in the favour thanks to some stuff that only politicians are interested in.
Whilst Labour talk about the NHS and the escalating Cost of Living Crisis.
Yeah, it'll go down a storm for your Party.
Will they include how they're going to break up the English NHS into regional devolved health services, a la Wales, when they talk about it?
I had some difficulty in seperating left and right commentators here, but there is a simple test: good news for jobs, new construction starting - righties are pleased and energised - lefties couldn't care less.
I have a similar test.
When food bank queues lengthen, disabled people lose benefits or get kicked out of their homes, or some part of the NHS gets flogged to some inefficient taxpayer-scrounging private company, righties are pleased and energised.
AnotherNick But people do identify with the historic counties of England and the big metropolitan cities, it is to the councils of those areas powers should be devolved
Tories drone on about rigging the political system in the favour thanks to some stuff that only politicians are interested in.
Whilst Labour talk about the NHS and the escalating Cost of Living Crisis.
Yeah, it'll go down a storm for your Party.
Labour won't be talking about the Welsh NHS much, will they? In fact, I think they'll whistle, tap their feet and look the other way. Or propose a law whereby the entirety of Wales on the NHS map of Britain is covered by a "There be Dragons" sticker.
If you want Labour to go into the next election with a message of "English voters are less important than Welsh or Scottish voters", then good luck to you. It may not prove pivotal, but it may, and Miliband's initial foray into stemming the problem is ridiculous.
Oh, and BTW, I am not a Tory (tm). In fact, I wish I was, as I'd quite like to attend the selection meeting for the Conservative candidate in South Cambridgeshire. It'd be interesting to see what goes on, even if I cannot vote.
Why are PB Tories so deeply ashamed of being Tory that they have to deny it, and sometimes even laughably claim to be "floating voters"?
"70 years ago socialist intellectual Ralph Miliband said he sometimes hoped the English would lose the war against the Nazis just to show them what's what. Today, his son shows a similar disrepect for this country. He refuses to bring any powers at all back from Brussels. While moving heaven and Earth to give the Scots more devolution, he won't allow the English to govern themselves. Even worse, he supports a system that spends 20% on each Scot than on each English resident. And he'll do nothing to stop mass immigration into England. For too long, the working class people of England have been neglected by the governing class, and Ed Miliband continues to put everyone else first. Only UKIP will give you the voice you deserve."
Mr Jessop - ''Played right, "Only the Conservatives can bring English votes for English laws." could play well at the GE' Yes, amongst other things. But the thing that comes across is labour anxious to protect an unfair self interest. The Conservatives should be clear about what the additional devolution for Scotland should be. I don't see any problem in principle. And the greater the devolution then the more obvious the unfairness of the present arrangemnts for Scottish MPs will be seen. Two things 1. Salmond is being totally disingenuous about some supposed delay or renaging on the so called 'vow'. Its not the 'vow', its the consequences for England which is the issue. 2. If you are Scots would you want the SNP to be involved in dealing with the further devolution issues. Would you trust Labour?
"70 years ago socialist intellectual Ralph Miliband said he sometimes hoped the English would lose the war against the Nazis just to show them what's what. Today, his son shows a similar disrepect for this country. He refuses to bring any powers at all back from Brussels. While moving heaven and Earth to give the Scots more devolution, he won't allow the English to govern themselves. Even worse, he supports a system that spends 20% on each Scot than on each English resident. And he'll do nothing to stop mass immigration into England. For too long, the working class people of England have been neglected by the governing class, and Ed Miliband continues to put everyone else first. Only UKIP will give you the voice you deserve."
Thanks to Josias I know a lot more about Ed's views on constitutional reform than I do on what Cameron believes EV4EL should mean in practice When do you think Dave will tell us what it will entail?
"70 years ago socialist intellectual Ralph Miliband said he sometimes hoped the English would lose the war against the Nazis just to show them what's what. Today, his son shows a similar disrepect for this country. He refuses to bring any powers at all back from Brussels. While moving heaven and Earth to give the Scots more devolution, he won't allow the English to govern themselves. Even worse, he supports a system that spends 20% on each Scot than on each English resident. And he'll do nothing to stop mass immigration into England. For too long, the working class people of England have been neglected by the governing class, and Ed Miliband continues to put everyone else first. Only UKIP will give you the voice you deserve."
Hi all, long-time lurker delurking here! I love this forum, and the well-reasoned arguments presented here have several times helped me to formulate my own opinions about issues. I know you all got sick of the AV referendum discussions, but the accumulated arguments on both sides definitely helped me to understand the implications and influenced my vote.
I've seen lots of issues that I've felt strongly about come and go and get forgotten about by the great and the good, but this one feels a bit different. Friends at work who've never before mentioned a political issue in my hearing are spitting mad about the "vow" and the unfair English settlement. If they're talking about it now, it seems like this one might actually gain some proper traction and lead to genuine changes.
Two weeks ago I felt that it was right for Scotland to decide its own fate, and proud to live in a country where such a thing was possible. Then came the repugnant sight of the party leaders panicking and promising the world to the Scots without any reference to the people who would be affected by it. After that I thought that Cameron's position was untenable regardless of the referendum outcome. I'm still of that opinion - his only hope in my eyes is if he can deliver both EV4EL and a repeal of the barnett formula alongside further Scottish devolution. I don't think it should stop there, and I think an English parliament of some shape must be in our future.
Welcome. Can I take it from your name that you are a female PBer? It's good to get more gender balance.
Thanks Socrates, and yes; female, mid-thirties and living in the South-East.
Tories drone on about rigging the political system in the favour thanks to some stuff that only politicians are interested in.
Whilst Labour talk about the NHS and the escalating Cost of Living Crisis.
Yeah, it'll go down a storm for your Party.
Labour won't be talking about the Welsh NHS much, will they? In fact, I think they'll whistle, tap their feet and look the other way. Or propose a law whereby the entirety of Wales on the NHS map of Britain is covered by a "There be Dragons" sticker.
If you want Labour to go into the next election with a message of "English voters are less important than Welsh or Scottish voters", then good luck to you. It may not prove pivotal, but it may, and Miliband's initial foray into stemming the problem is ridiculous.
Oh, and BTW, I am not a Tory (tm). In fact, I wish I was, as I'd quite like to attend the selection meeting for the Conservative candidate in South Cambridgeshire. It'd be interesting to see what goes on, even if I cannot vote.
Why are PB Tories so deeply ashamed of being Tory that they have to deny it, and sometimes even laughably claim to be "floating voters"?
To be fair to Josias, it is wrong to call him a Tory. He just has a visceral dislike of Labour and EdM, which is different.
I am not finding the discussion difficult. It's just that I do not have your visceral loathing for Labour and Miliband so I am not seeing malice in everything that they say or do. I have absolutely no problem in Miliband setting out where he stands on constitutional issues. It allows people to make a choice. As far as I can tell no detailed plans have yet been put forward by Labour and no committees have been established. Neither do we know how Miliband foresees the Constitutional Convention working - or how it will actually work (they are very possibly two different things). I happen to agree with him and Farage that one is needed, that is all.
Then by all means have a constitutional convention. But if it's going to take longer than a year or two to report, patch the existing system in the meantime, otherwise it's long-grass time. But do not have regional committees *before* the convention that are designed to reach only one conclusion. Which they self-evidently are.
As I said, it's arse about face. It's defining the solution and trying to make the problem match it.
Perhaps you should also rethink your 'visceral loathing' line.
I see Ruth Davidson has tweeted out the Scottish Conservative site has also gone down due to a huge surge in traffic.
Noticed there had been an increased interest in the party (a fellow party member had mentioned to me the main office had been really busy) but, site going down? Hmm..
ScottishConservatives.com don't seem to do any client side caching, so being overwhelmed by a traffic spike could just be bad administration, rather than high traffic.
Tories drone on about rigging the political system in the favour thanks to some stuff that only politicians are interested in.
Whilst Labour talk about the NHS and the escalating Cost of Living Crisis.
Yeah, it'll go down a storm for your Party.
Labour won't be talking about the Welsh NHS much, will they? In fact, I think they'll whistle, tap their feet and look the other way. Or propose a law whereby the entirety of Wales on the NHS map of Britain is covered by a "There be Dragons" sticker.
If you want Labour to go into the next election with a message of "English voters are less important than Welsh or Scottish voters", then good luck to you. It may not prove pivotal, but it may, and Miliband's initial foray into stemming the problem is ridiculous.
Oh, and BTW, I am not a Tory (tm). In fact, I wish I was, as I'd quite like to attend the selection meeting for the Conservative candidate in South Cambridgeshire. It'd be interesting to see what goes on, even if I cannot vote.
Why are PB Tories so deeply ashamed of being Tory that they have to deny it, and sometimes even laughably claim to be "floating voters"?
To be fair to Josias, it is wrong to call him a Tory. He just has a visceral dislike of Labour and EdM, which is different.
I am not finding the discussion difficult. It's just that I do not have your visceral loathing for Labour and Miliband so I am not seeing malice in everything that they say or do. I have absolutely no problem in Miliband setting out where he stands on constitutional issues. It allows people to make a choice. As far as I can tell no detailed plans have yet been put forward by Labour and no committees have been established. Neither do we know how Miliband foresees the Constitutional Convention working - or how it will actually work (they are very possibly two different things). I happen to agree with him and Farage that one is needed, that is all.
Then by all means have a constitutional convention. But if it's going to take longer than a year or two to report, patch the existing system in the meantime, otherwise it's long-grass time. But do not have regional committees *before* the convention that are designed to reach only one conclusion. Which they self-evidently are.
As I said, it's arse about face. It's defining the solution and trying to make the problem match it.
Perhaps you should also rethink your 'visceral loathing' line.
Why? Your comments make clear that you profoundly dislike both Labour and EdM. Shall we settle on that instead of "visceral"?
Hi all, long-time lurker delurking here! I love this forum, and the well-reasoned arguments presented here have several times helped me to formulate my own opinions about issues. I know you all got sick of the AV referendum discussions, but the accumulated arguments on both sides definitely helped me to understand the implications and influenced my vote.
I've seen lots of issues that I've felt strongly about come and go and get forgotten about by the great and the good, but this one feels a bit different. Friends at work who've never before mentioned a political issue in my hearing are spitting mad about the "vow" and the unfair English settlement. If they're talking about it now, it seems like this one might actually gain some proper traction and lead to genuine changes.
Two weeks ago I felt that it was right for Scotland to decide its own fate, and proud to live in a country where such a thing was possible. Then came the repugnant sight of the party leaders panicking and promising the world to the Scots without any reference to the people who would be affected by it. After that I thought that Cameron's position was untenable regardless of the referendum outcome. I'm still of that opinion - his only hope in my eyes is if he can deliver both EV4EL and a repeal of the barnett formula alongside further Scottish devolution. I don't think it should stop there, and I think an English parliament of some shape must be in our future.
Welcome. There's a serious shortage of rightwingers / Tories here.
We need more people with just one name, preferably a middle class one too.
Hi all, long-time lurker delurking here! I love this forum, and the well-reasoned arguments presented here have several times helped me to formulate my own opinions about issues. I know you all got sick of the AV referendum discussions, but the accumulated arguments on both sides definitely helped me to understand the implications and influenced my vote.
I've seen lots of issues that I've felt strongly about come and go and get forgotten about by the great and the good, but this one feels a bit different. Friends at work who've never before mentioned a political issue in my hearing are spitting mad about the "vow" and the unfair English settlement. If they're talking about it now, it seems like this one might actually gain some proper traction and lead to genuine changes.
Two weeks ago I felt that it was right for Scotland to decide its own fate, and proud to live in a country where such a thing was possible. Then came the repugnant sight of the party leaders panicking and promising the world to the Scots without any reference to the people who would be affected by it. After that I thought that Cameron's position was untenable regardless of the referendum outcome. I'm still of that opinion - his only hope in my eyes is if he can deliver both EV4EL and a repeal of the barnett formula alongside further Scottish devolution. I don't think it should stop there, and I think an English parliament of some shape must be in our future.
Welcome. Can I take it from your name that you are a female PBer? It's good to get more gender balance.
Thanks Socrates, and yes; female, mid-thirties and living in the South-East.
Comments
But in the meantime let's fix the problem with EV4EL that has absolutely nothing to do with proportional representation whatsoever.
It's also got nothing to do with reforming the House of Lords or breaking up the UK into regions either.
I would accept a constituency based AV run off system as a replacement for FPTP but PR never. We need to disempower the establishment party leaderships and their vested interests not give them more power.
Anyway, I am off.
As for large regions that is the recipe for dis-empowering voters. Its anti-democratic!
Which is a message that may play well in Scotland and Wales, as well as England.
If the Conservatives cannot get EVEL through, then a long and protracted opposition to fairness from Labour would be brilliant ammunition in the GE.
That way, the Conservatives get to give the Scottish people what they promised, and show Labour to be the undemocratic so-and-sos they are.
Played right, "Only the Conservatives can bring English votes for English laws." could play well at the GE.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2764114/Salmond-lashes-totally-shameless-Westminster-leaders-tricking-Scottish-voters-rejecting-independence.html
'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.'
Don't need any more excuses to delay,if additional powers for Scotland can be sorted in short order so can EV4EL.
Man is a fool, of the highest calibre.
Are Labour really going into the next election with no plans to reduce immigration, opposition to repatriation and a referendum with the EU, and supporting the Scots and Welsh deciding on English matters? If so, it would be very easy to connect Ed Miliband with the views of his father:
"The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world ... When you hear the English talk of this war you sometimes almost want them to lose it to show them how things are."
It's like when you get competing planning applications for, say, a large supermarket in a town, and they may both want (or one of them anyway) to have them determined by the council authorities at the same time as they claim it would not be fair for one to be approved first. But while they might be preferable, it might not be reasonable or achievable if one was submitted a lot sooner or, whichever was first, one is more complicated than the other and will not be ready to be determined for months and months beyond the other one.
If UKIP is good enough they will win whatever the rules of the game!
POEWAS
It won;t. Why? because a couple of months before the election the tories will have trooped through the lobbies to do the exact opposite. IE give scotland more autonomy, power and money for nothing in return. The very act of doing that will totally discredit the tories claim to be the party of england.
People judge politicians by what they do not what they say.
Thankfully cream puff red tory arguments like this aren;t being listened to, by the look of it. Crosby plays hardball. At last the conservatives are getting aggressive.
We do not need or want vast expensive and ultimately pointless changes to English local government. The issues in play are national issues. The issues are Scottish Labour MPs passing laws on the English NHS when they have no say in the Scottish Health Service in their own constituency.
I grow tired of your crude attempts to insult our intelligence. I've news for you, you fool nobody.
It's quite clear that Scotland is a sacred national unit to such people while England can be carved up as will. Lefties just have as much distaste for England as Ralph Miliband did. (SouthamObserver and Dan Hodges excluded.)
Sorry for difficulties with the Scottish Conservative website- it's due to huge increase in traffic. We're fixing it. Hopefully back up soon
I've seen lots of issues that I've felt strongly about come and go and get forgotten about by the great and the good, but this one feels a bit different. Friends at work who've never before mentioned a political issue in my hearing are spitting mad about the "vow" and the unfair English settlement. If they're talking about it now, it seems like this one might actually gain some proper traction and lead to genuine changes.
Two weeks ago I felt that it was right for Scotland to decide its own fate, and proud to live in a country where such a thing was possible. Then came the repugnant sight of the party leaders panicking and promising the world to the Scots without any reference to the people who would be affected by it. After that I thought that Cameron's position was untenable regardless of the referendum outcome. I'm still of that opinion - his only hope in my eyes is if he can deliver both EV4EL and a repeal of the barnett formula alongside further Scottish devolution. I don't think it should stop there, and I think an English parliament of some shape must be in our future.
Isabel Hardman@IsabelHardman·11 mins
Eddie Izzard is going to tour marginal seats in run-up to election #lab14
Last season Spurs underperformed as their new 7 players needed time to gel, individuals not a team.... a year on we can see the sum is now less than the parts and they actually are worse.
Spurs appear in the same downtrend of teamwork, skill and talent since their star player Bale left.... much as the same happened to Labour after Blair.
In fact, welcome to all the posters who delurked last week. Hopefully you will see fit to continue posting now that the referendum's over.
If you think about it, since 1997 power has gradually leaked away from England to the EU, Scotland, Wales etc.
Labour were clearly absolutely horrified by the thatcher years, and determined they must never happen again, whatever the people wanted.
None of which precludes a decision being taken that devolution to the regions is not a good idea. However, it is probably a very good reason why the Constitutional Convention should take place until after the election as if Labour wins there is a mandate for it and if labour does not win it does not need to be held in the format Miliband suggests.
Now I didn't come on here to listen to Labour and Libdem supporters attempt to further corrupt our electoral system. We voted down voting system change just a couple of years ago. It should be off the agenda for a generation!
I'm off pip pip!
Whilst Labour talk about the NHS and the escalating Cost of Living Crisis.
Yeah, it'll go down a storm for your Party.
Yeah, it'll go down a storm for your Party.
LOL... This from the man who predicted that yes would win and Cam would be history by Friday.
Surely the JCR bar must be open by now. They probably have a band on tonight....
You've got a hell of a surprise coming next time you speak to some of the white working class.
If they are going to try different tactics to expedite their objective, how might that play out in Westminster in terms of legislation on which they currently abstain?
But the wisdom of opinion polls is not the only consideration. Most people do not give any thought to esoteric consitutional issues - their answers expressed through opinion polls are not considered opinions and opinion poll questions on these kinds of topics are generally leading and designed to achieve the answer that the organisation paying the pollster wants to hear.
Opinion polling about the Welsh assembly was generally negative before it came into being, and the referendum achieved only a small majority, but now it exists it has a subsantial level of support.
Opinion polling about the Scottish independence when the Indyref was first mooted showed an overwhelming majority against, but when the campaign got under way it became clear that once people began to think about the idea the actual result would be much closer.
Politicians need to show some leadership and come up with new structures that will ensure the country will be well-governed in the long term and this cannot be done merely by consulting opinion polls and focus groups.
Noticed there had been an increased interest in the party (a fellow party member had mentioned to me the main office had been really busy) but, site going down? Hmm..
He's not setting up any other committees, for instance ones to examine the other options, such as an English Parliament, EVEL or even the status quo. No, he's just set up committees based on one idea.
That's why you're finding this discussion difficult: the obvious line for Miliband to take was to hold a constitutional convention first, with none of this prejudicial rubbish. In fact, he might have been able to get the other party leaders to agree to it.
Instead he's chosen one option and skewed the convention in that direction. Impressively, he managed that in the first day.
It'd be like a boss of mine saying: "I want you to spend a month looking at the best language to write this project in. But I really like C++, and the team I'm giving you are all experts in C++"
It's Hobson's Choice.
Opinion polling about the Welsh assembly was generally negative before it came into being, and the referendum achieved only a small majority, but now it exists it has a subsantial level of support.
Opinion polling about the Scottish independence when the Indyref was first mooted showed an overwhelming majority against, but when the campaign got under way it became clear that once people began to think about the idea the actual result would be much closer.
Politicians need to show some leadership and come up with new structures that will ensure the country will be well-governed in the long term and this cannot be done merely by consulting opinion polls and focus groups.
Good government does not entail breaking up the South East of England - the one area of the country with a booming regional economy - into three different bureaucracies and systems.
I agree that also good to have a few more females.
It is going to be an exciting year of politrix!
If you want Labour to go into the next election with a message of "English voters are less important than Welsh or Scottish voters", then good luck to you. It may not prove pivotal, but it may, and Miliband's initial foray into stemming the problem is ridiculous.
Oh, and BTW, I am not a Tory (tm). In fact, I wish I was, as I'd quite like to attend the selection meeting for the Conservative candidate in South Cambridgeshire. It'd be interesting to see what goes on, even if I cannot vote.
When food bank queues lengthen, disabled people lose benefits or get kicked out of their homes, or some part of the NHS gets flogged to some inefficient taxpayer-scrounging private company, righties are pleased and energised.
It writes itself.
Yes, amongst other things. But the thing that comes across is labour anxious to protect an unfair self interest.
The Conservatives should be clear about what the additional devolution for Scotland should be. I don't see any problem in principle. And the greater the devolution then the more obvious the unfairness of the present arrangemnts for Scottish MPs will be seen.
Two things
1. Salmond is being totally disingenuous about some supposed delay or renaging on the so called 'vow'. Its not the 'vow', its the consequences for England which is the issue.
2. If you are Scots would you want the SNP to be involved in dealing with the further devolution issues. Would you trust Labour?
Also a bit of sympathetic support.
It is obviously not sustainable as it is 4 points more than what YES got in the ref.
Labour support level has gone up 1 point since Holyrood 2011. Tories remain the same. LD loses 4 points to the SNP.
Hugh = Mandy Rice Davis
As I said, it's arse about face. It's defining the solution and trying to make the problem match it.
Perhaps you should also rethink your 'visceral loathing' line.
Now saying the Scottish issue is separate from the English.
Who else is shocked - SHOCKED - that he couldn't get that wheeze past Nick?
Link????
Then Labour's snoopers can come and investigate pb.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/21/labour-ask-public-sector-monitor-employees-social-background