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"?
I am a Tory. No shame.
And BTW, Mr Jessop should remember that the candidate for Clacton was selected by open primary. The tory one that is. The UKIP one was imposed by central edict.
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"?
I do not like EdM, or Clegg, or Cameron, or Farage or Salmond..... Just because you may have some "my party right or wrong" approach to life, do not assume everyone else is the same.
On topic,not surprised at the boost for SNP,they ran a very good campaign,they did Scotland proud,and rocked the Establishment.(actually scared them sh**less). Still despite that I think we got the best result.
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.
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.
I dropped back into lurking mostly because I know nothing about betting, political or otherwise. The consensus at the time seemed to be that people like me were a waste of bandwidth for those that are into betting, which seems a perfectly reasonable point to me.
I'd be interested to know whether betting, and specifically political betting, does attract more men than women. And does bingo, which does seem to attract women, count as betting? (I don't play bingo either.)
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?
And maybe they could also give an example of how EV4EL would have made a difference had it been brought in before now - what England-only legislation would not have gone through if EV4EL had been in operation in the past?
The Seriously Nasty Party basks in the glow of Salmond's resignation - a giant among dwarfs. 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.
So the good news for you is that there is no mid term uplift in the main opposition's support? That is a seriously sad level of denial.
Who else is shocked - SHOCKED - that he couldn't get that wheeze past Nick?
Link????
Downing Street has issued an unequivocal "no ifs, no buts" declaration that David Cameron will deliver on his pledge to devolve further powers to the Scottish parliament after the prime minister was accused of reneging on his promise to the people of Scotland.
No 10 moved to clarify its thinking after Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling challenged the prime minister over his decision to link further devolution to Edinburgh to new restrictions on the voting rights of Scottish MPs.
A government source said: "There was an unambiguous commitment by the party leaders to deliver more devolution to Scotland on a clear timetable. That is not conditional on anything else.
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 think Ed is a poor and untrustworthy politician, and a danger to the country. But I'd happily sit down for a drink with him and discuss our relevant positions. As a person he's almost certainly nice and well-meaning. It's his politics I dislike. I've even said as much in the past.
But 'visceral' dislike? Nah. My dislike of his politics is very much based in rationality from observing his past actions.
As for Labour: I have some sympathy with their position and view on things. But I think the current Labour party is still polluted by the New Labour years, and that they are undoubtedly the current nasty party in politics. But that doesn't make me automatically hate Labour voters or even their MPs. Most of us want a better country and world, even if we disagree on some of the ways of getting there.
If you're having to lower yourself to attack me like this, then you've obviously lost the argument. Perhaps you should go away and cool down a bit.
The Seriously Nasty Party basks in the glow of Salmond's resignation - a giant among dwarfs. 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.
So the good news for you is that there is no mid term uplift in the main opposition's support? That is a seriously sad level of denial.
Just wait a couple of months when the sympathy vote disappears.
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. ...................
There are also two massive risks for EdM. 1. Labour could lose half its Scottish MPs through being on the wrong side of the nationalist WC vote in Scotland. 2. Labour could lose votes in England through being on the wrong side of the nationalist WC vote in Scotland. A real double whammy.
Who else is shocked - SHOCKED - that he couldn't get that wheeze past Nick?
Link????
Downing Street has issued an unequivocal "no ifs, no buts" declaration that David Cameron will deliver on his pledge to devolve further powers to the Scottish parliament after the prime minister was accused of reneging on his promise to the people of Scotland.
No 10 moved to clarify its thinking after Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling challenged the prime minister over his decision to link further devolution to Edinburgh to new restrictions on the voting rights of Scottish MPs.
A government source said: "There was an unambiguous commitment by the party leaders to deliver more devolution to Scotland on a clear timetable. That is not conditional on anything else.
Guardian and others.
He did not really have any other choice, did he? You cannot make such the firm promise that Cameron did and then threaten or even just hint that you might renege on it. That would have been absolutely ruinous not only for the Union but also for him personally.
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
It's difficult to think that the SNP's level of support will fall in the aftermath of the referendum .... quite the opposite in fact in my opinion as they appear likely to receive some degree of a sympathy vote as a result of having been edged out, plus the Scots are likely to support the SNP to ensure that the full extent of the Devomax is duly delivered and in a timely manner. It is all the more surprising therefore that Ladbrokes have recently lengthened the odds on the SNP winning >7.5 seats at the GE from 5/6 to evens, while correspondingly shortening the odds on the opposite side of the bet on them winning <7.5 seats from 5/6 from 8/11. I can only imagine this is a knee jerk reaction to Salmond's impending retirement and the degree of uncertainty this introduces as regards his successor. Notwithstanding this aspect, evens look like very generous odds to me (indeed I had already invested at the earlier price of 5/6) and I've topped up today accordingly. Please do your own research.
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.
Who else is shocked - SHOCKED - that he couldn't get that wheeze past Nick?
Link????
Downing Street has issued an unequivocal "no ifs, no buts" declaration that David Cameron will deliver on his pledge to devolve further powers to the Scottish parliament after the prime minister was accused of reneging on his promise to the people of Scotland.
No 10 moved to clarify its thinking after Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling challenged the prime minister over his decision to link further devolution to Edinburgh to new restrictions on the voting rights of Scottish MPs.
A government source said: "There was an unambiguous commitment by the party leaders to deliver more devolution to Scotland on a clear timetable. That is not conditional on anything else.
Guardian and others.
He did not really have any other choice, did he? You cannot make such the firm promise that Cameron did and then threaten or even just hint that you might renege on it. That would have been absolutely ruinous not only for the Union but also for him personally.
Some Conservative MPs such as Bernard Jenkin made it quite clear that the promise had to be kept. All a matter of principles. One of the things Cameron generally does well.
kle 4 But 'there are the same number of/slightly more Scottish Tory MPs than Pandas in Edinburgh Zoo' has nowhere near the same impact as 'There are more Pandas in Edinburgh Zoo than Tory MPs in Scotland'
You would no doubt think it a conspiracy that dear Sweetie and Sunshine are being vigorously encouraged to get on with it ... and if the worst happens we can always upgrade to, oh, I don't know, Pygmy Hippos or Pere David's Deer as appropriate in Corstorphine. Besides, as a good biodiversity enthusiast, I always find it cheering when small, and almost extinct, populations rise to true breeding potential, even if it is only captive.
...only if you vote in a Labour government. Have I stepped out of a time machine? Is Michael Foot running the Labour Party? I see someone called Benn is making speeches at the Labour conference.
The Seriously Nasty Party basks in the glow of Salmond's resignation - a giant among dwarfs. 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.
So the good news for you is that there is no mid term uplift in the main opposition's support? That is a seriously sad level of denial.
Just wait a couple of months when the sympathy vote disappears.
Bear in mind that the Holyrood vote for the SNP is - or at least was - for the country to be run, not independence. If you were a LD or Tory, would you prefer Mr Swinney or SLAB to be controlling the finances?
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. ...................
There are also two massive risks for EdM. 1. Labour could lose half its Scottish MPs through being on the wrong side of the nationalist WC vote in Scotland. 2. Labour could lose votes in England through being on the wrong side of the nationalist WC vote in Scotland. A real double whammy.
Yeah, I'm definitely a lot less bullish about a Labour win than I was a few weeks ago. I don't think they're doomed or anything, but the way this has played out has added two big risks for them with a lot of downside and no upside. It's possible they'll finesse it, but I don't think the media will let them get away with that. There's a few ways I can imagine it being played out that won't hurt them significantly, but it's by no means a certainty.
Who else is shocked - SHOCKED - that he couldn't get that wheeze past Nick?
Link????
Downing Street has issued an unequivocal "no ifs, no buts" declaration that David Cameron will deliver on his pledge to devolve further powers to the Scottish parliament after the prime minister was accused of reneging on his promise to the people of Scotland.
No 10 moved to clarify its thinking after Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling challenged the prime minister over his decision to link further devolution to Edinburgh to new restrictions on the voting rights of Scottish MPs.
A government source said: "There was an unambiguous commitment by the party leaders to deliver more devolution to Scotland on a clear timetable. That is not conditional on anything else.
Guardian and others.
He did not really have any other choice, did he? You cannot make such the firm promise that Cameron did and then threaten or even just hint that you might renege on it. That would have been absolutely ruinous not only for the Union but also for him personally.
I know. Just look at Labour and their Euro constitution referendum pledge.
@Josias - I am fine. Your posts are almost without fail hostile to both EdM and Labour. My use of visceral dislike was not meant to imply that you harbour personal antipathy to Ed. Who could feel that way, except perhaps his brother and his brother's immediate family, perhaps? But politically it seems very clear from what you write on here that you dislike Ed and Labour intensely, or to put it another way - you have a visceral loathing of them. So I don't see the problem in my saying it. Whether that dislike is rational or not is a subjective judgement.
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..
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"?
I am a Tory. No shame.
And BTW, Mr Jessop should remember that the candidate for Clacton was selected by open primary. The tory one that is. The UKIP one was imposed by central edict.
Don't you think that in the very special case of a sitting MP joining a new party and triggering a by-election, it would be utterly ridiculous to have anyone else be the candidate?
The Seriously Nasty Party basks in the glow of Salmond's resignation - a giant among dwarfs. 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.
So the good news for you is that there is no mid term uplift in the main opposition's support? That is a seriously sad level of denial.
Just wait a couple of months when the sympathy vote disappears.
Bear in mind that the Holyrood vote for the SNP is - or at least was - for the country to be run, not independence. If you were a LD or Tory, would you prefer Mr Swinney or SLAB to be controlling the finances?
True. Salmond's team look far more competent than the main alternative. A similar issue in the UK!
But surely he has to keep his word ! The "vow" did not have any conditions.
Jeez Surbiton, when did a politician's vow mean anything? The Scots aren't babies, they know Cameron would need his party behind him to deliver anything.
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
He made a vow, along with other party leaders and Gordon Brown, that he would give more devolution to the Scots. He did not say anything about making it conditional on devolution in England.
As usual a Cameron announcement designed to keep his party happy for a few hours has turned out to be an utter disaster. It's the EU referendum all over again. He's now in a much worse position than he would have been had he made a more measured and less partisan statement yesterday morning.
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
Because using a constitutional near-crisis to play petty party political games was stupid.
One of Gideon's oh-so-masterful petty tactics to "get Labour" has backfired. Again.
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?
And maybe they could also give an example of how EV4EL would have made a difference had it been brought in before now - what England-only legislation would not have gone through if EV4EL had been in operation in the past?
Tuition fees, foundation hospitals? However, the real point is that there's a genuine possibility that the next government will have a UK majority but not an English one, and that with more powers being devolved to Scotland there'll be many more bills for which it matters.
"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."
It writes itself.
If you're a complete nutcase it might appeal.
Looks like the UK is full of nutcases:
Support for repatriating powers from EU: 61% Support for EVfEL or English parliament: 54% Limiting immigration: 77%
Having done this, it would not surprise me if Cameron did not even make 2015. The thumping sound you can hear is the sound of tory MPs hitting the roof.
The Seriously Nasty Party basks in the glow of Salmond's resignation - a giant among dwarfs. 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.
So the good news for you is that there is no mid term uplift in the main opposition's support? That is a seriously sad level of denial.
Just wait a couple of months when the sympathy vote disappears.
Bear in mind that the Holyrood vote for the SNP is - or at least was - for the country to be run, not independence. If you were a LD or Tory, would you prefer Mr Swinney or SLAB to be controlling the finances?
True. Salmond's team look far more competent than the main alternative. A similar issue in the UK!
Sadly, there is currently no credible centre left alternative to Labour in England.
But surely he has to keep his word ! The "vow" did not have any conditions.
Jeez Surbiton, when did a politician's vow mean anything? The Scots aren't babies, they know Cameron would need his party behind him to deliver anything.
They won;'t be behind him now.
On the other hand, it works both ways. If Cameron says something and doesn't deliver, the Scots don't have to accept the situation .
Where did he say "I have to keep my party members happy"? he could have said that two years ago - and had time to sort things out one way or another in the generous timetable given by Mr Salmond and the SNP - but he squandered that time and will be held to his unqualified promise.
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.
He's a Tory.
I am a coalitionista.
I see. So you vote for the Coalition party. I didn't know there was one.
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
He made a vow, along with other party leaders and Gordon Brown, that he would give more devolution to the Scots. He did not say anything about making it conditional on devolution in England.
As usual a Cameron announcement designed to keep his party happy for a few hours has turned out to be an utter disaster. It's the EU referendum all over again. He's now in a much worse position than he would have been had he made a more measured and less partisan statement yesterday morning.
Cameron made a stupid partisan statement because his jolly chum Gideon came up with it, cackling in his dungeon about how clever he was.
The pair of them are pathetic, and when we see the back of them in a few months the country's future will start looking brighter overnight.
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.
I dropped back into lurking mostly because I know nothing about betting, political or otherwise. The consensus at the time seemed to be that people like me were a waste of bandwidth for those that are into betting, which seems a perfectly reasonable point to me.
I'd be interested to know whether betting, and specifically political betting, does attract more men than women. And does bingo, which does seem to attract women, count as betting? (I don't play bingo either.)
There are plenty here who are more interested in the politics than the betting. Indeed it took me a couple of years to actually put my money where my mouth is.
Odds vary but Shadsy at Ladbrokes usually has the best range of political bets if you do not fancy running multiple accounts.
Labour should accept some form of English votes for English laws. It should also devolve huge amounts of power down to local councils. There is nothing to be afraid of.
What we don't want is a stupid english parliament.
"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."
It writes itself.
If you're a complete nutcase it might appeal.
Looks like the UK is full of nutcases:
Support for repatriating powers from EU: 61% Support for EVfEL or English parliament: 54% Limiting immigration: 77%
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.
He's a Tory.
I am a coalitionista.
I see. So you vote for the Coalition party. I didn't know there was one.
He's a Tory.
We all know it, I don't know why he denies it.
He'll be a laughing stock like "floating voter" hardcore Tory Plato if he's not careful.
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.
The other point is that Crossrail is a strategic project which has effects from out as far as Swindon and right across London to beyond the city into Canary Wharf. The consequence of the very valid point you make is that Miliband's scheme (if it warrants being called that) will be riddled with inconcistencies and exceptions. We can imagine something like Crossrail being 'called in' and ruled on by a Transport Minister from a Scottish constituency.
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
Because using a constitutional near-crisis to play petty party political games was stupid.
One of Gideon's oh-so-masterful petty tactics to "get Labour" has backfired. Again.
Why was it stupid? I really find it hard to imagine it playing that way in the media. Can you imagine Milliband being asked why he doesn't support the simple principle of EV4EL and saying "something something regional something something committee something the Tories are out to get us something" and that playing well in the media?
Whatever you think about the truth of the matter, it seemed like it'd be a total media headache for Labour if Cameron had stuck to his guns
Cameron is a terrible party leader. How the Tories can't see the damage he is doing them I don't know.
Agreed. I've been flirting with the possibility of voting UKIP for a while, but earlier today I actually found my mouse pointer hovering over the UKIP Donate button! I've never joined or donated to a political party in my life, but I'm genuinely starting to consider it.
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
He made a vow, along with other party leaders and Gordon Brown, that he would give more devolution to the Scots. He did not say anything about making it conditional on devolution in England.
As usual a Cameron announcement designed to keep his party happy for a few hours has turned out to be an utter disaster. It's the EU referendum all over again. He's now in a much worse position than he would have been had he made a more measured and less partisan statement yesterday morning.
Cameron made a stupid partisan statement because his jolly chum Gideon came up with it, cackling in his dungeon about how clever he was.
The pair of them are pathetic, and when we see the back of them in a few months the country's future will start looking brighter overnight.
He seems to be getting under your skin!
Cameron does have an awful knack of coming out on the winning side, indeed I think that he was quite happier in coalition with the LDs compared to being controlled by his right wing.
Labour should accept some form of English votes for English laws. It should also devolve huge amounts of power down to local councils. There is nothing to be afraid of.
What we don't want is a stupid english parliament.
@Josias - I am fine. Your posts are almost without fail hostile to both EdM and Labour. My use of visceral dislike was not meant to imply that you harbour personal antipathy to Ed. Who could feel that way, except perhaps his brother and his brother's immediate family, perhaps? But politically it seems very clear from what you write on here that you dislike Ed and Labour intensely, or to put it another way - you have a visceral loathing of them. So I don't see the problem in my saying it. Whether that dislike is rational or not is a subjective judgement.
I explained my position below. I'm sorry that you think that is 'visceral dislike', especially as visceral implies a certain amount of irrationality, based on emotion rather than fact.
As you can see from the discussion below, I have used links to show what has been said by Miliband other Labour figures about the committees, which you apparently knew nothing about.
It is you who are ignoring evidence in assuming that these committees will ignore what has already been said and what is evidently their terms of reference. For instance, Miliband's own words:
“In the coming weeks we will set out a process to begin before the next election with every region in the country engaged in a dialogue with the people about how power needs to be dispersed, including in England.
Which implies, if not shows, the decision has already been made well before any constitutional convention.
You are giving Miliband a rather curious amount of latitude. Which is odd, given your own oft-stated 'visceral dislike' of Miliband ...
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.
I dropped back into lurking mostly because I know nothing about betting, political or otherwise. The consensus at the time seemed to be that people like me were a waste of bandwidth for those that are into betting, which seems a perfectly reasonable point to me.
I'd be interested to know whether betting, and specifically political betting, does attract more men than women. And does bingo, which does seem to attract women, count as betting? (I don't play bingo either.)
There are plenty here who are more interested in the politics than the betting. Indeed it took me a couple of years to actually put my money where my mouth is.
I've only done so once, and it was a stupid bet at that. Even at small amounts I am averse to risking my cash, and don't understand most of the language of betting anyway.
"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."
It writes itself.
If you're a complete nutcase it might appeal.
Looks like the UK is full of nutcases:
Support for repatriating powers from EU: 61% Support for EVfEL or English parliament: 54% Limiting immigration: 77%
Will Labour accuse 77% of being racist?
Just economically illiterate maybe.
Old people need to get real their pensions are unaffordable without immigrants paying for them
Because English voters have been short changed & ignored for the past 15 years.
No, the centralisers have been BOTH Conservative and Labour. The Tories stripped local Government of much of its powers in the 1980s and 1990s - Labour were quite happy with that when they got to Government.
Both the main parties want power and control - the Conservatives see E4VEL as a mechanism for them to have power and control over England - Labour are opposed because only through the current system can they have power and control.
Both pay lip service to devolution - neither really believes or wants it.
BJO-then Labour should be honest and say we will need millions of immigrants to maintain the standard of living. Alternatively, we can see these reduce with no new immigration. And have a real debate about immigration.
There will be hell to pay for him now. Many tory MPs will vote against him. Even more droves of conservative voters will go to UKIP.
Cameron said he put the union above his party. we didn;t know quite how far above his party.
Correction; he's put Scotland far above England, Wales and his party. I generally give Cameron credit for his principled support of issues that go against his party's interests, but this one just baffles me!
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
He made a vow, along with other party leaders and Gordon Brown, that he would give more devolution to the Scots. He did not say anything about making it conditional on devolution in England.
As usual a Cameron announcement designed to keep his party happy for a few hours has turned out to be an utter disaster. It's the EU referendum all over again. He's now in a much worse position than he would have been had he made a more measured and less partisan statement yesterday morning.
So? Let's say he stuck with his "interpretation" of the vow. What would have happened?
1. Scots would have been pissed off. Worst case for him is that this ire was entirely directed at the Tories, in which case they may risk losing some votes in Scotland. Who cares? Better case is the ire would have been more spread out against English parties, increasing SNP votes and losing Labour votes. So little risk, all upside there.
2. He'd have been able to hammer Labour (and Lib dems?) for opposing EV4EL. If asked why he wasn't fulfilling the vow, he could have said it was because it was common sense to tie it to EV4EL. This would have played well with English voters. They're hardly going to punish him for it.
3. His backbenchers who were angry about the vow would have been largely pacified, and UKIP's pro-EV4EL campaigning would have been entirely directed against Labour. Now both those groups are going to be setting their targets on him as much or more than Labour
4. The issue would have inevitably come to a head before the election. It may still be the case, but Labour's chance of kicking it into the long grass (or at least to the other side of the election, which is what they really care about) has now hugely increased
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.
He's a Tory.
I am a coalitionista.
I see. So you vote for the Coalition party. I didn't know there was one.
No. The last time I voted, it was Conservative. Before that, Independent and Green. Lib Dem before that, and at GE 2010 Conservative, but would have been Lib Dem if Sandra Gidley hadn't published a certain leaflet. I've probably missed a few votes out there, but you get the drift.
You can scoff and disbelieve me if you like, but it's the truth. As I've said many times on here, I happen to vote for candidate rather than party. Which is why I've said many times I'd never be able to vote for my current Conservative MP, Lansley, because he's been a hopeless constituency MP.
And I'm currently a coalitionista because I happen to believe that it's worked quite well. It's almost enough to make me reconsider my opposition to PR ...
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.
The other point is that Crossrail is a strategic project which has effects from out as far as Swindon and right across London to beyond the city into Canary Wharf. The consequence of the very valid point you make is that Miliband's scheme (if it warrants being called that) will be riddled with inconcistencies and exceptions. We can imagine something like Crossrail being 'called in' and ruled on by a Transport Minister from a Scottish constituency.
And yet (unless things have changed since I last looked) HS2 phase 1 is being paid for in part by the Scots (because of its exclusion from the Barnett calculations) yet the Scots are at present likely to have to pay as well the full price for its extension in Scotland (or more precisely its growth from Glasgow and Edinburgh southwards and hopefully northwards) as transport is devolved. So in that case a Scot might well be the 'best 'person to decide ...
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
He made a vow, along with other party leaders and Gordon Brown, that he would give more devolution to the Scots. He did not say anything about making it conditional on devolution in England.
As usual a Cameron announcement designed to keep his party happy for a few hours has turned out to be an utter disaster. It's the EU referendum all over again. He's now in a much worse position than he would have been had he made a more measured and less partisan statement yesterday morning.
Cameron made a stupid partisan statement because his jolly chum Gideon came up with it, cackling in his dungeon about how clever he was.
The pair of them are pathetic, and when we see the back of them in a few months the country's future will start looking brighter overnight.
He seems to be getting under your skin!
Cameron does have an awful knack of coming out on the winning side, indeed I think that he was quite happier in coalition with the LDs compared to being controlled by his right wing.
According to a poster the other evening, Cameron's just lucky. In which case I'd like him to tell me his lottery numbers ...
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
Because using a constitutional near-crisis to play petty party political games was stupid.
One of Gideon's oh-so-masterful petty tactics to "get Labour" has backfired. Again.
Why was it stupid? I really find it hard to imagine it playing that way in the media. Can you imagine Milliband being asked why he doesn't support the simple principle of EV4EL and saying "something something regional something something committee something the Tories are out to get us something" and that playing well in the media?
Whatever you think about the truth of the matter, it seemed like it'd be a total media headache for Labour if Cameron had stuck to his guns
The two proposals are in parallel - if you read the Guardian story. More devolution for Scotland and resolving the WLQ.
There is no great problem here. I look forward to Labour voting the latter down - and taking the consequences. We should all also remember that the tory party does not have a majority. So I look forward to the LDs voting it down - ditto.
I would also look forward to the SNP voting *for* it in Westminster.
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. ...................
There are also two massive risks for EdM. 1. Labour could lose half its Scottish MPs through being on the wrong side of the nationalist WC vote in Scotland. 2. Labour could lose votes in England through being on the wrong side of the nationalist WC vote in Scotland. A real double whammy.
Are you still on the LAB losing half their seats stuff
Cameron is a terrible party leader. How the Tories can't see the damage he is doing them I don't know.
Many do of course, hence why he has so much trouble managing his party (although how much is down to perceived or real damage is a matter of opinion). There are inherently hostile malcontents who despise him no matter what he does, but either he has rotten luck and has so many of them, or he helps create more malcontents. It's one of the main reasons he will find it so hard to even lead them to largest party status again.
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..
The cynic in me does wonder when we hear about sites going down like this if it is not manufactured somehow, as 'our site went down due to a surge in traffic' sounds better than just 'we have seen a surge in interest'.
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
He made a vow, along with other party leaders and Gordon Brown, that he would give more devolution to the Scots. He did not say anything about making it conditional on devolution in England.
As usual a Cameron announcement designed to keep his party happy for a few hours has turned out to be an utter disaster. It's the EU referendum all over again. He's now in a much worse position than he would have been had he made a more measured and less partisan statement yesterday morning.
So? Let's say he stuck with his "interpretation" of the vow. What would have happened?
1. Scots would have been pissed off. Worst case for him is that this ire was entirely directed at the Tories, in which case they may risk losing some votes in Scotland. Who cares? Better case is the ire would have been more spread out against English parties, increasing SNP votes and losing Labour votes. So little risk, all upside there.
2. He'd have been able to hammer Labour (and Lib dems?) for opposing EV4EL. If asked why he wasn't fulfilling the vow, he could have said it was because it was common sense to tie it to EV4EL. This would have played well with English voters. They're hardly going to punish him for it.
3. His backbenchers who were angry about the vow would have been largely pacified, and UKIP's pro-EV4EL campaigning would have been entirely directed against Labour. Now both those groups are going to be setting their targets on him as much or more than Labour
4. The issue would have inevitably come to a head before the election. It may still be the case, but Labour's chance of kicking it into the long grass (or at least to the other side of the election, which is what they really care about) has now hugely increased
So kippers are now complaining that Cameron is a man of his word?
Fox, I should say after our conversations yesterday about our respective 'home' counties, that I congratulate Leicester on their win. And that's about as much as you'll ever get me to say about a football match!
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"?
Cameron isn't backtracking and the Tories need not worry.
Hasn't it been made abundantly clear that there will be NO legislation on either devox max or EV4EL this side of the election? What will happen is that, as promised in the vow, the three parties will agree the Scottish dimension in the form of a draft bill, but it will not become law as there simply isn't enough time. It will be enacted unananimously post May 2015 whoever wins the election.
Over the next few months the Hague Committee will deliberate on the EV4EL. It is possible that Labour and LibDems will concur, though unlikely by the former. I imagine it too will report in March and again no legislation will be forthcoming. Instead this issue, unlike Sotland will be hard fought between Cons and Lab as part of the election campaign and the voters will decide.
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
He made a vow, along with other party leaders and Gordon Brown, that he would give more devolution to the Scots. He did not say anything about making it conditional on devolution in England.
As usual a Cameron announcement designed to keep his party happy for a few hours has turned out to be an utter disaster. It's the EU referendum all over again. He's now in a much worse position than he would have been had he made a more measured and less partisan statement yesterday morning.
Cameron made a stupid partisan statement because his jolly chum Gideon came up with it, cackling in his dungeon about how clever he was.
The pair of them are pathetic, and when we see the back of them in a few months the country's future will start looking brighter overnight.
He seems to be getting under your skin!
Cameron does have an awful knack of coming out on the winning side, indeed I think that he was quite happier in coalition with the LDs compared to being controlled by his right wing.
The LDs are more willing to compromise and actually seem less inclined, in general, to rant about Cameron's failing while in government with him, than his own backbenchers. It's been very amusing at times.
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.
Fox, I should say after our conversations yesterday about our respective 'home' counties, that I congratulate Leicester on their win. And that's about as much as you'll ever get me to say about a football match!
It will be a long while before the smile leaves my face, or my voice comes back.
I shall concede on the Landscape though. Derbyshire wins on this.
Nottinghamshire not in the running for either crown...
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.
The other point is that Crossrail is a strategic project which has effects from out as far as Swindon and right across London to beyond the city into Canary Wharf. The consequence of the very valid point you make is that Miliband's scheme (if it warrants being called that) will be riddled with inconcistencies and exceptions. We can imagine something like Crossrail being 'called in' and ruled on by a Transport Minister from a Scottish constituency.
And yet (unless things have changed since I last looked) HS2 phase 1 is being paid for in part by the Scots (because of its exclusion from the Barnett calculations) yet the Scots are at present likely to have to pay as well the full price for its extension in Scotland (or more precisely its growth from Glasgow and Edinburgh southwards and hopefully northwards) as transport is devolved. So in that case a Scot might well be the 'best 'person to decide ...
How much is Scotland paying?
Remember, that even without an extension into Scotland, HS2 will improve times from Scotland (Edinburgh or Glasgow) to London using the classic trains, from 4hr30 mins (standard time) to 3hr37/3hr39 (1). And the assumption that Scotland would have to pay for the full cost of any extension into Scotland is just that: an assumption, as it has not been fully planned yet.
A new high-speed route fully inside Scotland (such as some super-EGIP) might be another matter. After all, surely Scottish MPs can vote on HS2, whilst English MPs cannot vote on the Scottish network?
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
He made a vow, along with other party leaders and Gordon Brown, that he would give more devolution to the Scots. He did not say anything about making it conditional on devolution in England.
As usual a Cameron announcement designed to keep his party happy for a few hours has turned out to be an utter disaster. It's the EU referendum all over again. He's now in a much worse position than he would have been had he made a more measured and less partisan statement yesterday morning.
So? Let's say he stuck with his "interpretation" of the vow. What would have happened?
1. Scots would have been pissed off. Worst case for him is that this ire was entirely directed at the Tories, in which case they may risk losing some votes in Scotland. Who cares? Better case is the ire would have been more spread out against English parties, increasing SNP votes and losing Labour votes. So little risk, all upside there.
2. He'd have been able to hammer Labour (and Lib dems?) for opposing EV4EL. If asked why he wasn't fulfilling the vow, he could have said it was because it was common sense to tie it to EV4EL. This would have played well with English voters. They're hardly going to punish him for it.
3. His backbenchers who were angry about the vow would have been largely pacified, and UKIP's pro-EV4EL campaigning would have been entirely directed against Labour. Now both those groups are going to be setting their targets on him as much or more than Labour
4. The issue would have inevitably come to a head before the election. It may still be the case, but Labour's chance of kicking it into the long grass (or at least to the other side of the election, which is what they really care about) has now hugely increased
So kippers are now complaining that Cameron is a man of his word?
"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."
It writes itself.
If you're a complete nutcase it might appeal.
Looks like the UK is full of nutcases:
Support for repatriating powers from EU: 61% Support for EVfEL or English parliament: 54% Limiting immigration: 77%
Excuse the niggle - but I thought I read yesterday that support for EVfEL was at 72%/
Oh, The grand old Baronet of Ballentaylor and Ballylemon, He had ten thousand men; He marched them up to the top of the hill, And he marched them down again.
And when they were up, they were up, And when they were down, they were down, And when they were only half-way up, They were neither up nor down
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
He made a vow, along with other party leaders and Gordon Brown, that he would give more devolution to the Scots. He did not say anything about making it conditional on devolution in England.
So? Let's say he stuck with his "interpretation" of the vow. What would have happened?
1. Scots would have been pissed off. Worst case for him is that this ire was entirely directed at the Tories, in which case they may risk losing some votes in Scotland. Who cares? Better case is the ire would have been more spread out against English parties, increasing SNP votes and losing Labour votes. So little risk, all upside there.
2. He'd have been able to hammer Labour (and Lib dems?) for opposing EV4EL. If asked why he wasn't fulfilling the vow, he could have said it was because it was common sense to tie it to EV4EL. This would have played well with English voters. They're hardly going to punish him for it.
3. His backbenchers who were angry about the vow would have been largely pacified, and UKIP's pro-EV4EL campaigning would have been entirely directed against Labour. Now both those groups are going to be setting their targets on him as much or more than Labour
4. The issue would have inevitably come to a head before the election. It may still be the case, but Labour's chance of kicking it into the long grass (or at least to the other side of the election, which is what they really care about) has now hugely increased
EV4EL has been bubbling in the background for a long time. Most Tories support it. It was brought up by grassroots members at the time of the leadership election speeches eg: at Old Trafford. Cameron was wise not to emphasise it while the Scot Indy question had not been addressed. It would have muddied the waters. He will try to put in in a package with the new powers for Scotland but will probably fail because Labour will not support it. It will therefore be a platform for the Tories at the 2015 GE and will be used to hammer Labour. Couple that with a promise of a referendum on the EU by a majority Conservative government and you will see a strong manifesto for Tory-inclined voters.
Glad he has clarified his position that the pledge was not dependent on EV4EL even though the little Englander wing of his party will go nuts.
A very sensible arrangement. I don't even understand why his party will be getting angry at this one. There was no way they could get EV4EL before the GE, so they would have had to go into the GE promising a Conservative government alone would ensure it anyway, hit Labour hard with that attack, and they can still do that and without alienating the Scots at the same time. They promised a solution in their manifesto last time around about it, but this time it should be more prominent.
They get to campaign on an issue that should be pretty popular and is another of the many issues some Tories think will be a game changer for the GE, what more could actually be achieved? It just feels like another example of some Tories being furious Cameron did not win a majority and needs the agreement of other parties to get things done.
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
He made a vow, along with other party leaders and Gordon Brown, that he would give more devolution to the Scots. He did not say anything about making it conditional on devolution in England.
As usual a Cameron announcement designed to keep his party happy for a few hours has turned out to be an utter disaster. It's the EU referendum all over again. He's now in a much worse position than he would have been had he made a more measured and less partisan statement yesterday morning.
So? Let's say he stuck with his "interpretation" of the vow. What would have happened?
1. Scots would have been pissed off. Worst case for him is that this ire was entirely directed at the Tories, in which case they may risk losing some votes in Scotland. Who cares? Better case is the ire would have been more spread out against English parties, increasing SNP votes and losing Labour votes. So little risk, all upside there.
2. He'd have been able to hammer Labour (and Lib dems?) for opposing EV4EL. If asked why he wasn't fulfilling the vow, he could have said it was because it was common sense to tie it to EV4EL. This would have played well with English voters. They're hardly going to punish him for it.
3. His backbenchers who were angry about the vow would have been largely pacified, and UKIP's pro-EV4EL campaigning would have been entirely directed against Labour. Now both those groups are going to be setting their targets on him as much or more than Labour
4. The issue would have inevitably come to a head before the election. It may still be the case, but Labour's chance of kicking it into the long grass (or at least to the other side of the election, which is what they really care about) has now hugely increased
So kippers are now complaining that Cameron is a man of his word?
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.
He's a Tory.
I am a coalitionista.
I see. So you vote for the Coalition party. I didn't know there was one.
He's a Tory.
We all know it, I don't know why he denies it.
He'll be a laughing stock like "floating voter" hardcore Tory Plato if he's not careful.
Well, I'd be an odd Tory as I've voted for virtually every party under the sun in the last five years. Unless you're saying I'm lying?
And you're another PBer who is obsessed with Plato. I've never met her, but she must be quite a gal IRL to get you all riled up so.
Glad he has clarified his position that the pledge was not dependent on EV4EL even though the little Englander wing of his party will go nuts.
A very sensible arrangement. I don't even understand why his party will be getting angry at this one. There was no way they could get EV4EL before the GE, so they would have had to go into the GE promising a Conservative government alone would ensure it anyway, hit Labour hard with that attack, and they can still do that and without alienating the Scots at the same time. They promised a solution in their manifesto last time around about it, but this time it should be more prominent.
They get to campaign on an issue that should be pretty popular and is another of the many issues some Tories think will be a game changer for the GE, what more could actually be achieved? It just feels like another example of some Tories being furious Cameron did not win a majority and needs the agreement of other parties to get things done.
I think they're angry about the vow. EV4EL is just to try to placate them. They probably would have preferred Cameron take a stance where he actually refuses to vote through the new Scottish powers without EV4EL. It's true that these votes may be happening on the other side of the election, but in a Tory/Lib Dem coalition or Tory minority, there'd probably be exactly the same issue.
Cameron isn't backtracking and the Tories need not worry.
Hasn't it been made abundantly clear that there will be NO legislation on either devox max or EV4EL this side of the election? What will happen is that, as promised in the vow, the three parties will agree the Scottish dimension in the form of a draft bill, but it will not become law as there simply isn't enough time. It will be enacted unananimously post May 2015 whoever wins the election.
Over the next few months the Hague Committee will deliberate on the EV4EL. It is possible that Labour and LibDems will concur, though unlikely by the former. I imagine it too will report in March and again no legislation will be forthcoming. Instead this issue, unlike Sotland will be hard fought between Cons and Lab as part of the election campaign and the voters will decide.
Exactly - so why are people getting so worked up about this on the Tory side?
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
I'm a bit confused about this actually. Surely linking the two together was win/win for Cameron. Either it helped push through EV4EL which would be popular and hurt the Labour party, or it'd be blocked by Lib/Lab which would give some powerful ammunition in the election campaign. Not to mention give UKIP something to really attack Labour on. Why back down?
He made a vow, along with other party leaders and Gordon Brown, that he would give more devolution to the Scots. He did not say anything about making it conditional on devolution in England.
As usual a Cameron announcement designed to keep his party happy for a few hours has turned out to be an utter disaster. It's the EU referendum all over again. He's now in a much worse position than he would have been had he made a more measured and less partisan statement yesterday morning.
So? Let's say he stuck with his "interpretation" of the vow. What would have happened?
1. Scots would have been pissed off. Worst case for him is that this ire was entirely directed at the Tories, in which case they may risk losing some votes in Scotland. Who cares? Better case is the ire would have been more spread out against English parties, increasing SNP votes and losing Labour votes. So little risk, all upside there.
2. He'd have been able to hammer Labour (and Lib dems?) for opposing EV4EL. If asked why he wasn't fulfilling the vow, he could have said it was because it was common sense to tie it to EV4EL. This would have played well with English voters. They're hardly going to punish him for it.
3. His backbenchers who were angry about the vow would have been largely pacified, and UKIP's pro-EV4EL campaigning would have been entirely directed against Labour. Now both those groups are going to be setting their targets on him as much or more than Labour
4. The issue would have inevitably come to a head before the election. It may still be the case, but Labour's chance of kicking it into the long grass (or at least to the other side of the election, which is what they really care about) has now hugely increased
So kippers are now complaining that Cameron is a man of his word?
A change of attitude slightly!
Keeping unpopular promises, while not keeping popular promises, is the issue.
Comments
And BTW, Mr Jessop should remember that the candidate for Clacton was selected by open primary. The tory one that is. The UKIP one was imposed by central edict.
Just because you may have some "my party right or wrong" approach to life, do not assume everyone else is the same.
Still despite that I think we got the best result.
I'd be interested to know whether betting, and specifically political betting, does attract more men than women. And does bingo, which does seem to attract women, count as betting? (I don't play bingo either.)
That is a seriously sad level of denial.
Looks like Hiugh is right. Cameron has backed down.
He will now utterly shatter his party. Many tories will vote against this...and many more conservative voters will vote UKIP.
Its a shame. We had labour on the run there for a while
No 10 moved to clarify its thinking after Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling challenged the prime minister over his decision to link further devolution to Edinburgh to new restrictions on the voting rights of Scottish MPs.
A government source said: "There was an unambiguous commitment by the party leaders to deliver more devolution to Scotland on a clear timetable. That is not conditional on anything else.
Guardian and others.
But 'visceral' dislike? Nah. My dislike of his politics is very much based in rationality from observing his past actions.
As for Labour: I have some sympathy with their position and view on things. But I think the current Labour party is still polluted by the New Labour years, and that they are undoubtedly the current nasty party in politics. But that doesn't make me automatically hate Labour voters or even their MPs. Most of us want a better country and world, even if we disagree on some of the ways of getting there.
If you're having to lower yourself to attack me like this, then you've obviously lost the argument. Perhaps you should go away and cool down a bit.
1. Labour could lose half its Scottish MPs through being on the wrong side of the nationalist WC vote in Scotland.
2. Labour could lose votes in England through being on the wrong side of the nationalist WC vote in Scotland.
A real double whammy.
It's difficult to think that the SNP's level of support will fall in the aftermath of the referendum .... quite the opposite in fact in my opinion as they appear likely to receive some degree of a sympathy vote as a result of having been edged out, plus the Scots are likely to support the SNP to ensure that the full extent of the Devomax is duly delivered and in a timely manner.
It is all the more surprising therefore that Ladbrokes have recently lengthened the odds on the SNP winning >7.5 seats at the GE from 5/6 to evens, while correspondingly shortening the odds on the opposite side of the bet on them winning <7.5 seats from 5/6 from 8/11. I can only imagine this is a knee jerk reaction to Salmond's impending retirement and the degree of uncertainty this introduces as regards his successor.
Notwithstanding this aspect, evens look like very generous odds to me (indeed I had already invested at the earlier price of 5/6) and I've topped up today accordingly.
Please do your own research.
Have I stepped out of a time machine? Is Michael Foot running the Labour Party? I see someone called Benn is making speeches at the Labour conference.
because Cameron is a cream puff red tory?
There will be hell to pay for him now. Many tory MPs will vote against him. Even more droves of conservative voters will go to UKIP.
Cameron said he put the union above his party. we didn;t know quite how far above his party.
I know. Just look at Labour and their Euro constitution referendum pledge.
A similar issue in the UK!
Jeez Surbiton, when did a politician's vow mean anything? The Scots aren't babies, they know Cameron would need his party behind him to deliver anything.
They won;'t be behind him now.
As usual a Cameron announcement designed to keep his party happy for a few hours has turned out to be an utter disaster. It's the EU referendum all over again. He's now in a much worse position than he would have been had he made a more measured and less partisan statement yesterday morning.
'Whilst Labour talk about the NHS '
What their 8% budget cuts in Wales?
One of Gideon's oh-so-masterful petty tactics to "get Labour" has backfired. Again.
Support for repatriating powers from EU: 61%
Support for EVfEL or English parliament: 54%
Limiting immigration: 77%
Nothing has changed.
Cameron will deliver on the vow, as he was always going to.
Cameron still wants EV4EL, and Ed still doesn't.
Which of those is the better position going into the GE in England?
Where did he say "I have to keep my party members happy"? he could have said that two years ago - and had time to sort things out one way or another in the generous timetable given by Mr Salmond and the SNP - but he squandered that time and will be held to his unqualified promise.
Stop privatisation of the NHS
24 hours to save the NHS
And other such nonsense.
The pair of them are pathetic, and when we see the back of them in a few months the country's future will start looking brighter overnight.
Odds vary but Shadsy at Ladbrokes usually has the best range of political bets if you do not fancy running multiple accounts.
Maybe quite a few.
What we don't want is a stupid english parliament.
'As usual a Cameron announcement designed to keep his party happy for a few hours has turned out to be an utter disaster'
It's Ed that's been squirming all day,had his party conference derailed and has managed to alienate English voters.
We all know it, I don't know why he denies it.
He'll be a laughing stock like "floating voter" hardcore Tory Plato if he's not careful.
The consequence of the very valid point you make is that Miliband's scheme (if it warrants being called that) will be riddled with inconcistencies and exceptions. We can imagine something like Crossrail being 'called in' and ruled on by a Transport Minister from a Scottish constituency.
Its the tories who will be marching through the lobbies in 2015, giving the Scots more power and money for nothing in return.
Whatever you think about the truth of the matter, it seemed like it'd be a total media headache for Labour if Cameron had stuck to his guns
The Tories are proposing EV4EL
Cameron does have an awful knack of coming out on the winning side, indeed I think that he was quite happier in coalition with the LDs compared to being controlled by his right wing.
As you can see from the discussion below, I have used links to show what has been said by Miliband other Labour figures about the committees, which you apparently knew nothing about.
It is you who are ignoring evidence in assuming that these committees will ignore what has already been said and what is evidently their terms of reference. For instance, Miliband's own words: Which implies, if not shows, the decision has already been made well before any constitutional convention.
You are giving Miliband a rather curious amount of latitude. Which is odd, given your own oft-stated 'visceral dislike' of Miliband ...
Which will be defeated.
And many tories will vote against more devolution for Scotland without it. The party will be hopelessly split...
Old people need to get real their pensions are unaffordable without immigrants paying for them
Both the main parties want power and control - the Conservatives see E4VEL as a mechanism for them to have power and control over England - Labour are opposed because only through the current system can they have power and control.
Both pay lip service to devolution - neither really believes or wants it.
Yup, sounds like Cameron is really struggling with this one. Oh, wait...
I suspect Labour will not be honest.
1. Scots would have been pissed off. Worst case for him is that this ire was entirely directed at the Tories, in which case they may risk losing some votes in Scotland. Who cares? Better case is the ire would have been more spread out against English parties, increasing SNP votes and losing Labour votes. So little risk, all upside there.
2. He'd have been able to hammer Labour (and Lib dems?) for opposing EV4EL. If asked why he wasn't fulfilling the vow, he could have said it was because it was common sense to tie it to EV4EL. This would have played well with English voters. They're hardly going to punish him for it.
3. His backbenchers who were angry about the vow would have been largely pacified, and UKIP's pro-EV4EL campaigning would have been entirely directed against Labour. Now both those groups are going to be setting their targets on him as much or more than Labour
4. The issue would have inevitably come to a head before the election. It may still be the case, but Labour's chance of kicking it into the long grass (or at least to the other side of the election, which is what they really care about) has now hugely increased
You can scoff and disbelieve me if you like, but it's the truth. As I've said many times on here, I happen to vote for candidate rather than party. Which is why I've said many times I'd never be able to vote for my current Conservative MP, Lansley, because he's been a hopeless constituency MP.
And I'm currently a coalitionista because I happen to believe that it's worked quite well. It's almost enough to make me reconsider my opposition to PR ...
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29301287
PBKinnock "Cameron is not going to deliver on the vow. It's a disaster for him. He may never recover"
This evening
PBKinnock "Cameron is
notgoing to deliver on the vow. It's a disaster for him. He may never recover"Get a grip guys
There is no great problem here. I look forward to Labour voting the latter down - and taking the consequences. We should all also remember that the tory party does not have a majority. So I look forward to the LDs voting it down - ditto.
I would also look forward to the SNP voting *for* it in Westminster.
The £50 bet is still available for you.
A change of attitude slightly!
I thought it was a huge win when Labour said it wouldn't over a referendum on the E.U?
You always over estimate the impact of things you care about.
Glad he has clarified his position that the pledge was not dependent on EV4EL even though the little Englander wing of his party will go nuts.
Hasn't it been made abundantly clear that there will be NO legislation on either devox max or EV4EL this side of the election? What will happen is that, as promised in the vow, the three parties will agree the Scottish dimension in the form of a draft bill, but it will not become law as there simply isn't enough time. It will be enacted unananimously post May 2015 whoever wins the election.
Over the next few months the Hague Committee will deliberate on the EV4EL. It is possible that Labour and LibDems will concur, though unlikely by the former. I imagine it too will report in March and again no legislation will be forthcoming. Instead this issue, unlike Sotland will be hard fought between Cons and Lab as part of the election campaign and the voters will decide.
I shall concede on the Landscape though. Derbyshire wins on this.
Nottinghamshire not in the running for either crown...
Remember, that even without an extension into Scotland, HS2 will improve times from Scotland (Edinburgh or Glasgow) to London using the classic trains, from 4hr30 mins (standard time) to 3hr37/3hr39 (1). And the assumption that Scotland would have to pay for the full cost of any extension into Scotland is just that: an assumption, as it has not been fully planned yet.
A new high-speed route fully inside Scotland (such as some super-EGIP) might be another matter. After all, surely Scottish MPs can vote on HS2, whilst English MPs cannot vote on the Scottish network?
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2
I for one give him a great deal of credit for that
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.
And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only half-way up,
They were neither up nor down
They get to campaign on an issue that should be pretty popular and is another of the many issues some Tories think will be a game changer for the GE, what more could actually be achieved? It just feels like another example of some Tories being furious Cameron did not win a majority and needs the agreement of other parties to get things done.
I am in a rather effervescent mood!
And you're another PBer who is obsessed with Plato. I've never met her, but she must be quite a gal IRL to get you all riled up so.