Mr. Thompson, indeed, so-called English votes for English laws, as proposed, amount to A Bit More English Consultation For English Laws. It's not good enough.
What's wrong with a referendum? Forcing a parliament onto people against their wishes isn't democracy. If we vote for it, well fantastic.
Who needs a referendum and what for?
And having a Parliament is democracy. Kind of by definition, we never voted for Parliament it evolved over time.
One parliament is democracy. Giving us a parliament for England, UK and third for Europe is just excessive. It would hurt voter turnout and damage democracy. The referendum would give the parliament legitimacy.
In the same why as there is one for Scotland, the UK and the EU, or for Wales, the UK and the EU, or for Northern Ireland, the UK and the EU you mean ? Its okay for the other three members of the union, but not the English, its a view I suppose....
No - two/three wrongs don't make a right. (Logical fallacy) Maybe that would have never happened if Blair employed a bit more direct democracy. EDIT: Also I'm pretty sure there were quite a few devolution referendums, let's give England the same courtesy.
I would happily support EV4EL on the same basis that SV4SL take place. Would you?
The issue is not just EV4EL though, is it? It's how the constituent parts of the United Kingdom can interact with each on an equitable, long-term basis, with as wide a buy-in as possible. I can see no logical reason to oppose a constitutional convention except for narrow party advantage. Unless, that is, you are opposed to the continued existence of the UK.
Yes fine absolutely and we have an English Parliament already, its called Westminster. I'd be happy to implement EVEL on that basis yes, would you?
What reason is there for a constitutional convention AFTER devolution has already happened. That's like arguing about what to do with the barn door EIGHTEEN YEARS after the horse has bolted. Devolution occured eighteen years ago, we need to exclude devolved MPs and be done with it.
The MPs representing English constituencies were elected to be representatives to the UK parliament, not an English one. And they do not represent the political of the English people. If you are going to have an English parliament - and I am all for one and have been for years - then English voters have to be given the right to choose it, just as the Scots get the right to choose theirs.
That sounds like an exercise in hair splitting. Are you seriously suggesting that if we dissolved the current parliament, and told the public that they were now electing their MP as a member for the English parliament, that they would elect someone different ?
I have no idea. What we do know, though, is that Labour could not possibly go into any kind of deal with the SNP, so the basis on which the electoral campaign might be conducted would be completely different.
Going back to yesterday's post I've put a handful of quid on Al Gore at 40/1. It's highly unlikely, but not that unlikely, that he'll run and these odds will drop IMHO.
Scotland hating Loonies are out early this morning
Anyone who doesn't blindly support the SNP "hates Scotland"
There's your "civic Nationalism", right there. It's Bollocks
I think the losing part is finally beginning to sink in for the angry party.
Only Eck seems to have his fingers in his ears - bravely shouting the odds when his boss is on the other side of the world...
You guys are on top form, I didn't realise that the 2nd of August was lets
Sadly, the Tory reaction to the referendum result means it is not over. Talk about dusting your opponent down and inviting him to get up off the floor to tover" read "means the SNP are desperate to be still heard, lest they are seen for the impotent buffoons they are".
No, read Cameron talking about EV4EL instead of unity and reconciliation in his reaction to the referendum result; observe the election campaign that sparked despair among Scottish Tories; witness Chris Grayling's comically inept attempt to force through a botched up version of EV4EL; and note the Tories' lack of interest in a cross-party constitutional convention designed to sort out the current mess in a long-term, consensual way. Each one a gift and combined manna from heaven for an SNP seeking to keep the independence flame alive.
If the SNP truly want independence, they need to extend the franchise to the whole of the UK, that way they will actually get a yes. But in that event, they would actually be held responsible for their actions so it's not going to happen.
Can you explain how a party that represents only Scottish constituences can extend a franchise to the whole of the UK? I'd be very interested in the mechanism that would enable this.
You're telling me that a party of super hero's such as the snp are unable to lobby for and have the franchise extended across the UK as a matter of fairness? Wonders will never cease, snp not all powerful shocker.
We both know if they campaigned to have the franchise extended there would be support for it from English MP's, but it's not going to happen. The English won't do it proactively because they really don't care enough, but handed the option the polling shows they would vote to see Scotland go.
Scotland hating Loonies are out early this morning
Anyone who doesn't blindly support the SNP "hates Scotland"
There's your "civic Nationalism", right there. It's Bollocks
I think the losing part is finally beginning to sink in for the angry party.
Only Eck seems to have his fingers in his ears - bravely shouting the odds when his boss is on the other side of the world...
You guys are on top form, I didn't realise that the 2nd of August was lets
Sadly, the Tory reaction to the referendum result means it is not over. Talk about dusting your opponent down and inviting him to get up off the floor to tover" read "means the SNP are desperate to be still heard, lest they are seen for the impotent buffoons they are".
No, read Cameron talking about EV4EL instead of unity and reconciliation in his reaction to the referendum result; observe the election campaign that sparked despair among Scottish Tories; witness Chris Grayling's comically inept attempt to force through a botched up version of EV4EL; and note the Tories' lack of interest in a cross-party constitutional convention designed to sort out the current mess in a long-term, consensual way. Each one a gift and combined manna from heaven for an SNP seeking to keep the independence flame alive.
If the SNP truly want independence, they need to extend the franchise to the whole of the UK, that way they will actually get a yes. But in that event, they would actually be held responsible for their actions so it's not going to happen.
Can you explain how a party that represents only Scottish constituences can extend a franchise to the whole of the UK? I'd be very interested in the mechanism that would enable this.
You're telling me that a party of super hero's such as the snp are unable to lobby for and have the franchise extended across the UK as a matter of fairness? Wonders will never cease, snp not all powerful shocker.
We both know if they campaigned to have the franchise extended there would be support for it from English MP's, but it's not going to happen. The English won't do it proactively because they really don't care enough, but handed the option the polling shows they would vote to see Scotland go.
Lazy English would prefer to sit on their arses and whine rather than be proactive? Fair enough.
I would happily support EV4EL on the same basis that SV4SL take place. Would you?
The issue is not just EV4EL though, is it? It's how the constituent parts of the United Kingdom can interact with each on an equitable, long-term basis, with as wide a buy-in as possible. I can see no logical reason to oppose a constitutional convention except for narrow party advantage. Unless, that is, you are opposed to the continued existence of the UK.
Yes fine absolutely and we have an English Parliament already, its called Westminster. I'd be happy to implement EVEL on that basis yes, would you?
What reason is there for a constitutional convention AFTER devolution has already happened. That's like arguing about what to do with the barn door EIGHTEEN YEARS after the horse has bolted. Devolution occured eighteen years ago, we need to exclude devolved MPs and be done with it.
The MPs representing English constituencies were elected to be representatives to the UK parliament, not an English one. And they do not represent the political of the English people. If you are going to have an English parliament - and I am all for one and have been for years - then English voters have to be given the right to choose it, just as the Scots get the right to choose theirs.
That sounds like an exercise in hair splitting. Are you seriously suggesting that if we dissolved the current parliament, and told the public that they were now electing their MP as a member for the English parliament, that they would elect someone different ?
I have no idea. What we do know, though, is that Labour could not possibly go into any kind of deal with the SNP, so the basis on which the electoral campaign might be conducted would be completely different.
What would they vote on though? We've already elected MPs to decide on the NHS etc which Scotland has not as they've devolved that.
"If anyone wondered why the Calais migrants are so desperate to reach Britain, the Government’s own website may provide the answer.
The gov.uk internet pages spell out exactly what asylum seekers can expect upon arrival in Britain, from State cash handouts of £36.95 per person each week to free accommodation, education and healthcare.
Using official figures for the average annual sums spent per head on healthcare, education and rent in the UK, the total outlay including cash support for a family of two adults and two children is about £35,300 a year."
"By contrast, the French government website, service-public.fr is far less user-friendly.
And, although asylum seekers are in theory entitled to accommodation, there is a long waiting list as the number of people living rough in The Jungle proves.
Human Rights Watch say 15,000 asylum seekers are waiting for a place in a reception centre in France."
"Hundreds of migrants who have smuggled themselves into Britain from Calais are being put up in hotels at taxpayers' expense.
Stowaways who have illegally entered the country on lorries or trains through the Channel Tunnel are being transported across England and given their own hotel room, three cooked meals a day and a cash allowance of £35 a week – all within days of entering the UK.
They are being accommodated in hotels boasting pools, gyms and spas even before claiming asylum, because official reception centres cannot cope with the recent surge in illegal arrivals."
One of Britain’s top charities is at risk of collapse after new details of financial chaos and unrest in the organisation emerged.
Secret plans have been drawn up to wind down Kids Company, sack most of its staff and launch a new streamlined organisation to help vulnerable children who rely on it.
According to some sources, it could even be relaunched under a new name.
I would happily support EV4EL on the same basis that SV4SL take place. Would you?
The issue is not just EV4EL though, is it? It's how the constituent parts of the United Kingdom can interact with each on an equitable, long-term basis, with as wide a buy-in as possible. I can see no logical reason to oppose a constitutional convention except for narrow party advantage. Unless, that is, you are opposed to the continued existence of the UK.
Yes fine absolutely and we have an English Parliament already, its called Westminster. I'd be happy to implement EVEL on that basis yes, would you?
What reason is there for a constitutional convention AFTER devolution has already happened. That's like arguing about what to do with the barn door EIGHTEEN YEARS after the horse has bolted. Devolution occured eighteen years ago, we need to exclude devolved MPs and be done with it.
The MPs representing English constituencies were elected to be representatives to the UK parliament, not an English one. And they do not represent the political of the English people. If you are going to have an English parliament - and I am all for one and have been for years - then English voters have to be given the right to choose it, just as the Scots get the right to choose theirs.
That sounds like an exercise in hair splitting. Are you seriously suggesting that if we dissolved the current parliament, and told the public that they were now electing their MP as a member for the English parliament, that they would elect someone different ?
I have no idea. What we do know, though, is that Labour could not possibly go into any kind of deal with the SNP, so the basis on which the electoral campaign might be conducted would be completely different.
What would they vote on though? We've already elected MPs to decide on the NHS etc which Scotland has not as they've devolved that.
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
I would happily support EV4EL on the same basis that SV4SL take place. Would you?
The issue is not just EV4EL though, is it? It's how the constituent parts of the United Kingdom can interact with each on an equitable, long-term basis, with as wide a buy-in as possible. I can see no logical reason to oppose a constitutional convention except for narrow party advantage. Unless, that is, you are opposed to the continued existence of the UK.
Yes fine absolutely and we have an English Parliament already, its called Westminster. I'd be happy to implement EVEL on that basis yes, would you?
What reason is there for a constitutional convention AFTER devolution has already happened. That's like arguing about what to do with the barn door EIGHTEEN YEARS after the horse has bolted. Devolution occured eighteen years ago, we need to exclude devolved MPs and be done with it.
The MPs representing English constituencies were elected to be representatives to the UK parliament, not an English one. And they do not represent the political of the English people. If you are going to have an English parliament - and I am all for one and have been for years - then English voters have to be given the right to choose it, just as the Scots get the right to choose theirs.
That sounds like an exercise in hair splitting. Are you seriously suggesting that if we dissolved the current parliament, and told the public that they were now electing their MP as a member for the English parliament, that they would elect someone different ?
I have no idea. What we do know, though, is that Labour could not possibly go into any kind of deal with the SNP, so the basis on which the electoral campaign might be conducted would be completely different.
What would they vote on though? We've already elected MPs to decide on the NHS etc which Scotland has not as they've devolved that.
The NHS has been devolved since its inception, and Scottish MPs deciding on its English incarnation.
The 56 got around the same percentage of the vote as the 3. Such is FPTP.
50% to 46.2%, not quite 'around the same percentage'.
But in no way representative of the views of Scottish voters. The SNP got over 90% of the seats for their 50%.
Perhaps Basil can return to help you with your goalposts.
It's not me claiming that the 56 SNPs represent the overwhelming view of Scottish voters, when they actually represent the choice made by 50% of Scottish voters. I can understand, though, why it suits the SNP and its supporters to forget that.
These established Hard Left networks have mass support in the ranks of inactive members, as well as cadres who often hold key positions as CLP or branch secretaries. They have their own mailing lists assembled over years, and their NEC candidates hold extremely potent email lists assiduously collected at speaker meetings – one boasts of being able to email 20,000 members. The potency of and disciplined vote for the Grassroots Alliance slate is regularly demonstrated in NEC elections. Last summer the left took 4 of 6 NEC slots with all 6 of their candidates getting over 21000 votes, and Ken Livingstone getting nearly 40,000. I would have thought 95% of the core 21000 and many of the other additional 19000 who backed Ken will be Corbyn voters.
The second component is Affiliated Supporters. Basically Unite is what matters here. The other unions backing Corbyn are small craft unions like the bakers and train drivers who are vocal but not big battalions. The other big unions – GMB and Unison – do not appear to be deploying a machine for Corbyn – one may not nominate and the other may back Burnham. But Unite has followed through on the logic of its policy positions and its much-leaked national political strategy and on the spirit of the Collins Review which assumed unions would enthusiastically recruit members to vote, and has signed up large numbers. I think their claim to have signed up 50,000 affiliated supporters is credible based on local sign-ups I see as Membership Secretary in my own CLP. If last time’s impact of the union nomination on voting behaviour is anything to go by, that means another 25,000 votes for Corbyn.
On Topic: I think the one, if anything, that swings it for Corbo, will be slanted encouragement of members to vote by Union call centres.
UNITE have proved quite willing to manipulate any system they can, and I see no reason why they wouldn't do so in this case. They have the data as to their members' opinions.
Is there any reason?
I had a chat with a left-leaning mate yesterday. Although he wasn't sure he got a leader vote as his union might not be affiliated, he would probably veer towards Corbyn he says. His logic being that a Corbyn led Lab party would force the political debate onto left ideas such as anti-austerity, get rid of Trident etc. It would open up the public to a whole raft of alternatives which the last twenty years of Blair-Cameron have kept firmly in the closet.
I remain calm in the face of all this and slightly increased my bets on Yvette this morning.
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
But you're inventing a problem where one doesn't exist. We've already elected MPs to vote on healthcare etc
Just because 10% of the population doesn't want to have Parliament decide it doesn't mean the rest of the UK has an issue with Parliament doing its job. But those who've decided to quit should go on issues they're not elected to solve.
Going back to yesterday's post I've put a handful of quid on Al Gore at 40/1. It's highly unlikely, but not that unlikely, that he'll run and these odds will drop IMHO.
I'm getting really worried about 2016. Let's look at the Democratic potential runners:
Hilary Clinton - very strange and shady woman, not to mention rude and arrogant, who has convinced several not over-bright party activists that she is brilliant but had a poor track record as Secretary of State and who has never done any serious work outside a minor role on the Watergate investigation;
Joe Biden - would be the oldest President ever elected, and is also not exactly noted for his verbal fluency and common sense;
Al Gore - couldn't even beat George W. Bush, and is chiefly famous for his penchant for luxury flights while going to lecture on the evils of global warming caused by er, unnecessary flying.
And the Republicans, if anything, are even worse. Just look at Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, before running screaming for the nearest fallout shelter.
There's got to be room for a bold, untainted candidate from either party to enter the race and fire the imagination, a la Obama (although it would be difficult to emulate him after 7 1/2 years of disillusionment). Does anyone have any possible suggestions in mind?
The 56 got around the same percentage of the vote as the 3. Such is FPTP.
50% to 46.2%, not quite 'around the same percentage'.
But in no way representative of the views of Scottish voters. The SNP got over 90% of the seats for their 50%.
Perhaps Basil can return to help you with your goalposts.
It's not me claiming that the 56 SNPs represent the overwhelming view of Scottish voters, when they actually represent the choice made by 50% of Scottish voters. I can understand, though, why it suits the SNP and its supporters to forget that.
And I can understand why it suits a Unionist to suggest that the the SNP got 'around the same percentage' as the Unionist parties, and then get snippy when pulled up about it.
When it came to throwing powers at Scotland and Wales there was no such need. But the levelling of the playing field is somehow a different matter.
There are only two legitimate ways forward [within the union]: Axe Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly Establish an English Parliament
I agree. But that is only going to happen with a constitutional convention, the results of which are endorsed in a UK-wide referendum.
This is just can-kicking trying to eek out what partisan advantage you can milk. The time for a convention and a UK-wide referendum was eighteen years ago. The referendums have already happened, devolution has already happened it is too late now for a convention.
We need a tidying up exercise of MPs from parts of the UK where Parliament decides it voting in Parliament. Problem over.
The MPs representing English constituencies were elected to be representatives to the UK parliament, not an English one. And they do not represent the political of the English people. If you are going to have an English parliament - and I am all for one and have been for years - then English voters have to be given the right to choose it, just as the Scots get the right to choose theirs.
That sounds like an exercise in hair splitting. Are you seriously suggesting that if we dissolved the current parliament, and told the public that they were now electing their MP as a member for the English parliament, that they would elect someone different ?
I have no idea. What we do know, though, is that Labour could not possibly go into any kind of deal with the SNP, so the basis on which the electoral campaign might be conducted would be completely different.
What would they vote on though? We've already elected MPs to decide on the NHS etc which Scotland has not as they've devolved that.
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
Do we have any legal precedent for a constitutional convention ? In what way would the ideas it pass not be subject to being changed by the next party in power of whatever colour. In order to fetter parliament we would need to write some sort of written constitutions which was voted on by the public in a referendum, which might contain all sorts of other stuff, freedom of speech might be a good place to start, freedom of expression another. Then we can have merry time throwing out the many, many laws we have which would be incompatible with our new constitution... and that is before we even consider where our new constitution stands vis-a-vis Europe and the ECHR. Meanwhile the SNP wont be interested in any of it and will have endless full trying to screw it up, and throw legal challenges at everything it can.
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
But you're inventing a problem where one doesn't exist. We've already elected MPs to vote on healthcare etc
Just because 10% of the population doesn't want to have Parliament decide it doesn't mean the rest of the UK has an issue with Parliament doing its job. But those who've decided to quit should go on issues they're not elected to solve.
My MP was elected to serve in the UK parliament based on an election campaign in which issues affecting the entire UK were a central part of the debate. What's more, if you want to ensure that the views of English voters are heard, then you have to ensure that the votes of English voters are accurately reflected in the make-up of an English parliament. That means the Tories having 41% of seats, not well over 55%.
I had a chat with a left-leaning mate yesterday. Although he wasn't sure he got a leader vote as his union might not be affiliated, he would probably veer towards Corbyn he says. His logic being that a Corbyn led Lab party would force the political debate onto left ideas such as anti-austerity, get rid of Trident etc. It would open up the public to a whole raft of alternatives which the last twenty years of Blair-Cameron have kept firmly in the closet.
I remain calm in the face of all this and slightly increased my bets on Yvette this morning.
You've got to admire his optimism. Yet in many ways he is just following the logic of Dan Hodges and Frank Field. Force the left to put their alternative out, so they can see that they are not being kept from power by a bankers' conspiracy, but because the voters don't actually like their policies.
In many ways, this would be helpful and put a final end to Socialism. In other ways, since Socialists are very bad losers, I can see it causing all sorts of trouble (as in, violence) if they realise that everyone hates them.
What's more, if you want to ensure that the views of English voters are heard, then you have to ensure that the votes of English voters are accurately reflected in the make-up of an English parliament. That means the Tories having 41% of seats, not well over 55%.
No trying to sneak in a new electoral system by the back door.
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
But you're inventing a problem where one doesn't exist. We've already elected MPs to vote on healthcare etc
Just because 10% of the population doesn't want to have Parliament decide it doesn't mean the rest of the UK has an issue with Parliament doing its job. But those who've decided to quit should go on issues they're not elected to solve.
My MP was elected to serve in the UK parliament based on an election campaign in which issues affecting the entire UK were a central part of the debate. What's more, if you want to ensure that the views of English voters are heard, then you have to ensure that the votes of English voters are accurately reflected in the make-up of an English parliament. That means the Tories having 41% of seats, not well over 55%.
The NHS didn't feature in the election campaign did it? I seem to recall the NHS playing a key role in the campaign.
For UK-wide issues the Tories would have whatever UK-wide share of the seats they've won. For England-only issues the Tories would have whatever England-only share of the seats they've won.
What will be the effect of the reality of a Labour party dominated by the hard left? Burnham Kendall and Cooper in their mid 40s face the real prospect of no government roles for 10 years, a time when in their mid 50s most top political careers are usually over. These caalculations are being made throughout the Labour party. The effect of Corbyn winning will be a massive loss of the little talent that is still in the party.
When it came to throwing powers at Scotland and Wales there was no such need. But the levelling of the playing field is somehow a different matter.
There are only two legitimate ways forward [within the union]: Axe Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly Establish an English Parliament
I agree. But that is only going to happen with a constitutional convention, the results of which are endorsed in a UK-wide referendum.
This is just can-kicking trying to eek out what partisan advantage you can milk. The time for a convention and a UK-wide referendum was eighteen years ago. The referendums have already happened, devolution has already happened it is too late now for a convention.
We need a tidying up exercise of MPs from parts of the UK where Parliament decides it voting in Parliament. Problem over.
What partisan advantage would I get from an English parliament in which there was a UKIP/Tory majority and the votes of left-wing Scottish and Welsh MPs were permanently excluded? Engage your brain a little, instead of throwing around silly accusations. My interest here is the on-going viability of the United Kingdom, a country that I happen to be very proud to be a citizen of. If that is not an interest of yours, just say so.
What's more, if you want to ensure that the views of English voters are heard, then you have to ensure that the votes of English voters are accurately reflected in the make-up of an English parliament. That means the Tories having 41% of seats, not well over 55%.
No trying to sneak in a new electoral system by the back door.
I support a constitutional convention precisely because I believe a new settlement should be endorsed via a referendum.
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
But you're inventing a problem where one doesn't exist. We've already elected MPs to vote on healthcare etc
Just because 10% of the population doesn't want to have Parliament decide it doesn't mean the rest of the UK has an issue with Parliament doing its job. But those who've decided to quit should go on issues they're not elected to solve.
My MP was elected to serve in the UK parliament based on an election campaign in which issues affecting the entire UK were a central part of the debate. What's more, if you want to ensure that the views of English voters are heard, then you have to ensure that the votes of English voters are accurately reflected in the make-up of an English parliament. That means the Tories having 41% of seats, not well over 55%.
The NHS didn't feature in the election campaign did it? I seem to recall the NHS playing a key role in the campaign.
For UK-wide issues the Tories would have whatever UK-wide share of the seats they've won. For England-only issues the Tories would have whatever England-only share of the seats they've won.
Democracy. Clean and easy.
My recollection is of a lot of posters with Ed in Alex's pocket. All fine and good for a UK election; totally irrelevant for an English one.
I do not accept the argument that a defeated party must change its policies in order to have any chance of success at future elections. There is also the possibility that due to changed circumstances the electorate will move towards the party that lost the previous election. As an example I have long believed that Labour would have been comfortably elected in 1997 had it simply fought on a repeat of its 1992 manifesto - because over the intervening five years such policies had become more acceptable to the electorate at large. The SNP's platform of Independence was rejected by the electorate of Scotland repeatedly at general elections over many decades but that did not lead the party to abandon its programme. Eventually its persistence has been rewarded!
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
But you're inventing a problem where one doesn't exist. We've already elected MPs to vote on healthcare etc
Just because 10% of the population doesn't want to have Parliament decide it doesn't mean the rest of the UK has an issue with Parliament doing its job. But those who've decided to quit should go on issues they're not elected to solve.
My MP was elected to serve in the UK parliament based on an election campaign in which issues affecting the entire UK were a central part of the debate. What's more, if you want to ensure that the views of English voters are heard, then you have to ensure that the votes of English voters are accurately reflected in the make-up of an English parliament. That means the Tories having 41% of seats, not well over 55%.
The NHS didn't feature in the election campaign did it? I seem to recall the NHS playing a key role in the campaign.
For UK-wide issues the Tories would have whatever UK-wide share of the seats they've won. For England-only issues the Tories would have whatever England-only share of the seats they've won.
Democracy. Clean and easy.
My recollection is of a lot of posters with Ed in Alex's pocket. All fine and good for a UK election; totally irrelevant for an English one.
Round here, Labour campaigned on the NHS. The Tories didn't bother to campaign at all.
The Tories won the seat. And that is why Andy Burnham is the wrong choice for Labour
Perhaps some of the newbie intake in GE2015 will show through shortly? IIRC there are a couple of dozen who nominated Corbyn on principle, so may see a bit more limelight than they'd get otherwise.
If Corbyn does 'succeed' in pulling Labour significantly to the left - maybe there's another Kinnock Snr type in there to drag them back to reality by GE2025?
What will be the effect of the reality of a Labour party dominated by the hard left? Burnham Kendall and Cooper in their mid 40s face the real prospect of no government roles for 10 years, a time when in their mid 50s most top political careers are usually over. These caalculations are being made throughout the Labour party. The effect of Corbyn winning will be a massive loss of the little talent that is still in the party.
The 56 got around the same percentage of the vote as the 3. Such is FPTP.
50% to 46.2%, not quite 'around the same percentage'.
But in no way representative of the views of Scottish voters. The SNP got over 90% of the seats for their 50%.
Perhaps Basil can return to help you with your goalposts.
It's not me claiming that the 56 SNPs represent the overwhelming view of Scottish voters, when they actually represent the choice made by 50% of Scottish voters. I can understand, though, why it suits the SNP and its supporters to forget that.
And I can understand why it suits a Unionist to suggest that the the SNP got 'around the same percentage' as the Unionist parties, and then get snippy when pulled up about it.
50% to 46.2% is more around the same percentage than 55.3% to 44.7% is.
The 56 got around the same percentage of the vote as the 3. Such is FPTP.
50% to 46.2%, not quite 'around the same percentage'.
But in no way representative of the views of Scottish voters. The SNP got over 90% of the seats for their 50%.
Perhaps Basil can return to help you with your goalposts.
It's not me claiming that the 56 SNPs represent the overwhelming view of Scottish voters, when they actually represent the choice made by 50% of Scottish voters. I can understand, though, why it suits the SNP and its supporters to forget that.
And I can understand why it suits a Unionist to suggest that the the SNP got 'around the same percentage' as the Unionist parties, and then get snippy when pulled up about it.
46 looks pretty close to 50 in my book. It certainly looks a whole lot closer than 55 to 45. I guess we shall just have to disagree and accept that you are very happy for 46% of Scots to be represented by 3 MPs, while 50% get 56. .
What's more, if you want to ensure that the views of English voters are heard, then you have to ensure that the votes of English voters are accurately reflected in the make-up of an English parliament. That means the Tories having 41% of seats, not well over 55%.
No trying to sneak in a new electoral system by the back door.
I support a constitutional convention precisely because I believe a new settlement should be endorsed via a referendum.
Because we all know that a referendum is the end of the matter once and for all and not a neverendum right? Considering Scotland has had two referendums and is already talking about a third don't talk nonsense.
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
A consensual resolution is not currently possible. The SNP will use any excuse to call a second referendum. Regardless of what the convention proposes they will reject it and scream treachery.
We need to fix the West Lothian Question - which should have been done 17 years ago - and wait for emotions to cool before having a proper constitutional convention in due course.
What's more, if you want to ensure that the views of English voters are heard, then you have to ensure that the votes of English voters are accurately reflected in the make-up of an English parliament. That means the Tories having 41% of seats, not well over 55%.
No trying to sneak in a new electoral system by the back door.
I support a constitutional convention precisely because I believe a new settlement should be endorsed via a referendum.
Because we all know that a referendum is the end of the matter once and for all and not a neverendum right? Considering Scotland has had two referendums and is already talking about a third don't talk nonsense.
Again, instead of throwing around silly accusations engage your brain. For there to be another referendum on the results of an all-party constitutional convention there would need to be another all-party constitutional convention. And that would only happen if there were a groundswell among voters for that to happen. Just as there will only be another Scottish independence referendum if Scottish voters indicate that they want one.
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
A consensual resolution is not currently possible. The SNP will use any excuse to call a second referendum. Regardless of what the convention proposes they will reject it and scream treachery.
We need to fix the West Lothian Question - which should have been done 17 years ago - and wait for emotions to cool before having a proper constitutional convention in due course.
Fear of a party that could not win last year's referendum does not look a good enough reason to me to not sort out the current constitutional mess the UK finds itself in - especially given the government's seeming inability actually to resolve the issue of EV4EL.
What's more, if you want to ensure that the views of English voters are heard, then you have to ensure that the votes of English voters are accurately reflected in the make-up of an English parliament. That means the Tories having 41% of seats, not well over 55%.
No trying to sneak in a new electoral system by the back door.
I support a constitutional convention precisely because I believe a new settlement should be endorsed via a referendum.
Because we all know that a referendum is the end of the matter once and for all and not a neverendum right? Considering Scotland has had two referendums and is already talking about a third don't talk nonsense.
Again, instead of throwing around silly accusations engage your brain. For there to be another referendum on the results of an all-party constitutional convention there would need to be another all-party constitutional convention. And that would only happen if there were a groundswell among voters for that to happen. Just as there will only be another Scottish independence referendum if Scottish voters indicate that they want one.
If there is to be a constitutional convention then who would sit on this convention? How would they decide? Who would vote? How are these convention members elected?
There is no reconcilable position that will keep all parties happy. The SNP want independence, Labour don't. The Tories want English MPs to decide English issues, Labour don't. Simply having a committee called a convention would no more resolve the matter than Leveson resolved the media.
We have a convention for solving constitutional issues, its called Parliament. Funny that.
I had a chat with a left-leaning mate yesterday. Although he wasn't sure he got a leader vote as his union might not be affiliated, he would probably veer towards Corbyn he says. His logic being that a Corbyn led Lab party would force the political debate onto left ideas such as anti-austerity, get rid of Trident etc. It would open up the public to a whole raft of alternatives which the last twenty years of Blair-Cameron have kept firmly in the closet.
I remain calm in the face of all this and slightly increased my bets on Yvette this morning.
You've got to admire his optimism. Yet in many ways he is just following the logic of Dan Hodges and Frank Field. Force the left to put their alternative out, so they can see that they are not being kept from power by a bankers' conspiracy, but because the voters don't actually like their policies. In many ways, this would be helpful and put a final end to Socialism. In other ways, since Socialists are very bad losers, I can see it causing all sorts of trouble (as in, violence) if they realise that everyone hates them.
This is a bright hope from this. Others on the right worry about Labour embracing socialism again. The risk is if the Conservative party also splits and we have a recession prior to 2020.
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
A consensual resolution is not currently possible. The SNP will use any excuse to call a second referendum. Regardless of what the convention proposes they will reject it and scream treachery.
We need to fix the West Lothian Question - which should have been done 17 years ago - and wait for emotions to cool before having a proper constitutional convention in due course.
Fear of a party that could not win last year's referendum does not seem a good enough reason to me to sort out the current constitutional mess the UK finds itself in - especially given the government's seeming inability actually to resolve the issue of EV4EL.
It's not fear. It's practical reality.
And you need to be honest with yourself: you fear EVEL because you fear that it will entrench a centre-right majority in England. So you want to punt it into the long-grss while pretending to be all high & mighty.
EVEL solves a problem which was identified as long ago as the 1970s and which should have been fixed in 1997 but was not because Labour saw the status quo as being in their partisan advantage. EVEL corrects that error. It is in line with the British tradition of incremental reforms. There is an argument for a constitutional convention in due course but - as you so nicely demonstrated - it will get bogged down in discussions of other constitutional reforms (e.g. electoral systems) and the result is that the fundamental unfairness of the current set up will never be addressed
If, and we shall have to see what the legislation actually says, every public sector worker dealing face to face with the public is going to have to speak fluent English then the NHS is going to be in big trouble. I suspect, though, that a new definition of "fluent" will be constructed and this will turn out to be another Cameron wheeze.
Since this proposed measure would discriminate indirectly on the grounds of nationality, it is prima facie contrary to article 3 of Council and Parliament Regulation 2011/492/EU. There is an exception in respect of conditions of employment 'relating to linguistic knowledge by reason of the nature of the post to be filled'. This was interpreted fairly liberally in relation to the predecessor regulation in Groener v Minister for Education [1990] 1 CMLR 401, where the Court of Justice upheld the legality of forcing those who taught art in the English language to be able to speak Irish. Whether the court (which is not bound by its previous decisions) would take the same approach today is an open question. It is quite difficult to argue that knowledge of the English language is in fact necessary, as opposed to desirable, in every post involving interaction with members of the public.
What's more, if you want to ensure that the views of English voters are heard, then you have to ensure that the votes of English voters are accurately reflected in the make-up of an English parliament. That means the Tories having 41% of seats, not well over 55%.
No trying to sneak in a new electoral system by the back door.
I support a constitutional convention precisely because I believe a new settlement should be endorsed via a referendum.
Because we all know that a referendum is the end of the matter once and for all and not a neverendum right? Considering Scotland has had two referendums and is already talking about a third don't talk nonsense.
Again, instead of throwing around silly accusations engage your brain. For there to be another referendum on the results of an all-party constitutional convention there would need to be another all-party constitutional convention. And that would only happen if there were a groundswell among voters for that to happen. Just as there will only be another Scottish independence referendum if Scottish voters indicate that they want one.
If there is to be a constitutional convention then who would sit on this convention? How would they decide? Who would vote? How are these convention members elected?
There is no reconcilable position that will keep all parties happy. The SNP want independence, Labour don't. The Tories want English MPs to decide English issues, Labour don't. Simply having a committee called a convention would no more resolve the matter than Leveson resolved the media.
We have a convention for solving constitutional issues, its called Parliament. Funny that.
No, the convention these days is for constitutional issues to be put to the people in the form of a referendum. The SNP can refuse to take part in the convention if they so wish and the Scots can decide to vote against it - though there is absolutely nothing to indicate that either would happen. The position of both Labour and the LibDems is to have an all-party constitutional convention. I am not sure what the Tory position is, given the decision to rethink Grayling's botched attempt to sneak EV4EL through the parliamentary backdoor.
'That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. '
A piecemeal approach was perfectly acceptable when New Labour (elected by a minority of voters) gave devolution to Scotland & Wales,but EV4EL needs a full constitutional convention.
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
A consensual resolution is not currently possible. The SNP will use any excuse to call a second referendum. Regardless of what the convention proposes they will reject it and scream treachery.
We need to fix the West Lothian Question - which should have been done 17 years ago - and wait for emotions to cool before having a proper constitutional convention in due course.
Fear of a party that could not win last year's referendum does not seem a good enough reason to me to sort out the current constitutional mess the UK finds itself in - especially given the government's seeming inability actually to resolve the issue of EV4EL.
It's not fear. It's practical reality.
And you need to be honest with yourself: you fear EVEL because you fear that it will entrench a centre-right majority in England. So you want to punt it into the long-grss while pretending to be all high & mighty.
EVEL solves a problem which was identified as long ago as the 1970s and which should have been fixed in 1997 but was not because Labour saw the status quo as being in their partisan advantage. EVEL corrects that error. It is in line with the British tradition of incremental reforms. There is an argument for a constitutional convention in due course but - as you so nicely demonstrated - it will get bogged down in discussions of other constitutional reforms (e.g. electoral systems) and the result is that the fundamental unfairness of the current set up will never be addressed
A centre right majority is already entrenched in England. I regret that, but accept it. Your problem seems to be that it is not a Tory majority. EV4EL should make no difference in this Parliament given that the Tories have an overall majority. The only way there might be an issue is if the government could not command all its own MPs. And given that most English people did not vote for the Tories anyway, why should the government be further advantaged by EV4EL which reduces the efficacy of Tory rebellions?
I was speaking to a lfe-long Labour voter a couple of days ago.
Not unexpectedly, he is a Jezza fan but he surprised me with his realism. "He'll never get elected PM but it doesn't matter," he said. "Two or three years to rejuvenate the party and get rid of all the dead wood, then bring in someone electable."
It's a balm for those still bruised by the election defeat
The first thing the Tories should do if Corbyn wins (and even if he doesn't) is repeal the fixed term parliament act. If Labour think they can have a few years of making themselves feel better before bringing someone more credible in they could have a nasty surprise.
I don't see that getting through the Lords somehow!
'That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. '
A piecemeal approach was perfectly acceptable when New Labour (elected by a minority of voters) gave devolution to Scotland & Wales,but EV4EL needs a full constitutional convention.
Your having a laugh.
You are confusing me with someone who believed that it was right for the Labour government not to deal with the WLQ.
Kieran may not be fully understanding the logic of some Labour supporters who are backing Corbyn despite not being obviously right on left wingers. The New Labour approach was fine in its time and did well. But it was never going to last forever. It just didn't work last time. .
The last time the New Labour approach was tried Labour won a majority of 66.
But Labour polled fewer votes in 2005 than in 2015.
Fear of a party that could not win last year's referendum does not look a good enough reason to me to not sort out the current constitutional mess the UK finds itself in - especially given the government's seeming inability actually to resolve the issue of EV4EL.
The advantage of having an unwritten constitution is its inherent flexibility and adaptability. As we are British, we do not insist that all constitutional arrangements have to be logically coherent. There is room for give and take, and many cardinal constitutional principles can be justified by custom, history and the fact that they work, or, at least, work better than the alternatives. There are undoubtedly several constitutional anomalies which are in need of resolution, of which the West Lothian question is one of the most pressing.
The problem with a constitutional convention is that no issue will be off the table. Everything from entrenchment, judicial rather than parliamentary supremacy, bills of rights, the voting system for the House of Commons, the nature, functions and composition of the second chamber, and the relations between the four parts of the UK will be up for grabs. The idea that a bipartisan and workable agreement will be reached on all these matters any time soon by any convention is difficult to believe. A constitutional convention (while it would be much loved by academics) looks like a strategy for kicking issues which we can resolve now into the long grass.
If, and we shall have to see what the legislation actually says, every public sector worker dealing face to face with the public is going to have to speak fluent English then the NHS is going to be in big trouble. I suspect, though, that a new definition of "fluent" will be constructed and this will turn out to be another Cameron wheeze.
Since this proposed measure would discriminate indirectly on the grounds of nationality, it is prima facie contrary to article 3 of Council and Parliament Regulation 2011/492/EU. There is an exception in respect of conditions of employment 'relating to linguistic knowledge by reason of the nature of the post to be filled'. This was interpreted fairly liberally in relation to the predecessor regulation in Groener v Minister for Education [1990] 1 CMLR 401, where the Court of Justice upheld the legality of forcing those who taught art in the English language to be able to speak Irish. Whether the court (which is not bound by its previous decisions) would take the same approach today is an open question. It is quite difficult to argue that knowledge of the English language is in fact necessary, as opposed to desirable, in every post involving interaction with members of the public.
Once again making up your own nonsense while phrasing it in Internet Lawyer to sound like you know what you're talking about. Unless there has been a Court case banning requiring those who deal with the public in an English-speaking country then its not contrary to the law.
Knowledge of language is not the same as nationality. Especially given across the EU 93% of primary school pupils are taught English it is hard to claim that only the English speak English.
I didn't realise that the 2nd of August was lets try and give the SNP and Scotland a good kicking day !!
Zooooooooooooom
The SNP is not Scotland.
With the SNP already polling at around 60% and given David Cameron's rather unhelpful contribution to the Scottish Tories cause, the SNP's surge is set to continue. Much of this renewed surge is driven by the perceived anti-Scotland stance of the MSM and folks like yourself.
Kieran may not be fully understanding the logic of some Labour supporters who are backing Corbyn despite not being obviously right on left wingers. The New Labour approach was fine in its time and did well. But it was never going to last forever. It just didn't work last time. .
The last time the New Labour approach was tried Labour won a majority of 66.
But Labour polled fewer votes in 2005 than in 2015.
1: No it didn't, it polled more in 2005. 2: There were three million more votes in 2015.
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
A consensual resolution is not currently possible. The SNP will use any excuse to call a second referendum. Regardless of what the convention proposes they will reject it and scream treachery.
We need to fix the West Lothian Question - which should have been done 17 years ago - and wait for emotions to cool before having a proper constitutional convention in due course.
Fear of a party that could not win last year's referendum does not seem a good enough reason to me to sort out the current constitutional mess the UK finds itself in - especially given the government's seeming inability actually to resolve the issue of EV4EL.
It's not fear. It's practical reality.
And you need to be honest with yourself: you fear EVEL because you fear that it will entrench a centre-right majority in England. So you want to punt it into the long-grss while pretending to be all high & mighty.
EVEL solves a problem which was identified as long ago as the 1970s and which should have been fixed in 1997 but was not because Labour saw the status quo as being in their partisan advantage. EVEL corrects that error. It is in line with the British tradition of incremental reforms. There is an argument for a constitutional convention in due course but - as you so nicely demonstrated - it will get bogged down in discussions of other constitutional reforms (e.g. electoral systems) and the result is that the fundamental unfairness of the current set up will never be addressed
Kieran may not be fully understanding the logic of some Labour supporters who are backing Corbyn despite not being obviously right on left wingers. The New Labour approach was fine in its time and did well. But it was never going to last forever. It just didn't work last time. .
The last time the New Labour approach was tried Labour won a majority of 66.
But Labour polled fewer votes in 2005 than in 2015.
2005 - Labour poll 9.5 million
2015 - 9.3 million.
Granted, it's not a huge difference in terms of raw numbers. But if you poll fewer votes on a higher turnout it's what we call a worse result.
Living within 40 miles of the base I find your sentiments above rather unpleasant. Hopefully there will never be an incident which causes you to reflect upon what you have just said.
Sorry Calum, but so what?
I have two homes - such is work - that require me to live within 40 miles of Aldermaston. My wife owns (and rents) another that will also be within scope.
London and the Sarf-'Eest pay for this stuff. No-one ever said life was fair...!
Many thanks for your sincere apology it's much appreciated.
For what it's worth I've worked in the City for the last 30 years and played an integral part in growing a number of successful global businesses.
I'm well aware that life isn't fair - I was diagnosed over 5 years ago with MND at the age of 46 !!
Kieran may not be fully understanding the logic of some Labour supporters who are backing Corbyn despite not being obviously right on left wingers. The New Labour approach was fine in its time and did well. But it was never going to last forever. It just didn't work last time. .
The last time the New Labour approach was tried Labour won a majority of 66.
But Labour polled fewer votes in 2005 than in 2015.
2005 - Labour poll 9.5 million
2015 - 9.3 million.
Granted, it's not a huge difference in terms of raw numbers. But if you poll fewer votes on a higher turnout it's what we call a worse result.
If Labour want to take a holiday from front-line politics until, say, 2022, then the Tories will be very pleased. I don't think Labour supporters know how long seven years in the wilderness is.
I didn't realise that the 2nd of August was lets try and give the SNP and Scotland a good kicking day !!
Zooooooooooooom
The SNP is not Scotland.
With the SNP already polling at around 60% and given David Cameron's rather unhelpful contribution to the Scottish Tories cause, the SNP's surge is set to continue. Much of this renewed surge is driven by the perceived anti-Scotland stance of the MSM and folks like yourself.
Have you visited Scotland recently ?
When I was there recently (as in, until last Wednesday) the Scots - even the ones from Dundee and Glasgow - would hurriedly change the subject whenever politics came up. I think they felt rather embarrassed at what had happened, and were afraid that the vitriol the SNP have been dishing out might be fired back at them.
They were also extremely friendly, polite and welcoming, which given the behaviour of their elected representatives, came as a very pleasant surprise.
Fortunately, not least for Scotland, even though the SNP continue to ride high, they do not equal Scotland.
That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. That is not the way to sustain the UK. If that is your interest - and I understand that for many it is not - then a consensual solution endorsed by referendum is what is needed.
A consensual resolution is not currently possible. The SNP will use any excuse to call a second referendum. Regardless of what the convention proposes they will reject it and scream treachery.
We need to fix the West Lothian Question - which should have been done 17 years ago - and wait for emotions to cool before having a proper constitutional convention in due course.
Fear of a party that could not win last year's referendum does not seem a good enough reason to me to sort out the current constitutional mess the UK finds itself in - especially given the government's seeming inability actually to resolve the issue of EV4EL.
It's not fear. It's practical reality.
And you need to be honest with yourself: you fear EVEL because you fear that it will entrench a centre-right majority in England. So you want to punt it into the long-grss while pretending to be all high & mighty.
EVEL solves a problem which was identified as long ago as the 1970s and which should have been fixed in 1997 but was not because Labour saw the status quo as being in their partisan advantage. EVEL corrects that error. It is in line with the British tradition of incremental reforms. There is an argument for a constitutional convention in due course but - as you so nicely demonstrated - it will get bogged down in discussions of other constitutional reforms (e.g. electoral systems) and the result is that the fundamental unfairness of the current set up will never be addressed
A centre right majority is already entrenched in England. I regret that, but accept it. Your problem seems to be that it is not a Tory majority. EV4EL should make no difference in this Parliament given that the Tories have an overall majority. The only way there might be an issue is if the government could not command all its own MPs. And given that most English people did not vote for the Tories anyway, why should the government be further advantaged by EV4EL which reduces the efficacy of Tory rebellions?
I don't care about this Parliament. I'm looking at fundamental matters of fair balance.
Simply put: Scottish MPs should not have a vote over matters in England that English MPs can not vote on in Scotland.
Once again making up your own nonsense while phrasing it in Internet Lawyer to sound like you know what you're talking about. Unless there has been a Court case banning requiring those who deal with the public in an English-speaking country then its not contrary to the law.
Knowledge of language is not the same as nationality. Especially given across the EU 93% of primary school pupils are taught English it is hard to claim that only the English speak English.
Charming. You are right that knowledge of the language is not the same thing as nationality, but there is a strong correlation between the two. If you limit job offers in the UK to those who can speak English, you will tend to recruit more British nationals. Hence you discriminate indirectly on the grounds of nationality. Subject to issues of justification, both direct and indirect discrimination of the grounds of nationality are contrary to EU law.
There is directly applicable EU legislation on precisely this subject, which can be read here. That is subject to interpretation by the court (as it has been in the past), but one does not have to await a court decision to express a view. In any event, all that I said was that the legality of the government's proposal (if extended to other EU nationals) was an open question.
If Labour want to take a holiday from front-line politics until, say, 2022, then the Tories will be very pleased. I don't think Labour supporters know how long seven years in the wilderness is.
Watching those scenes in Calais, with the photographers and media right up in the mix, reminded me of the 'students' who trashed conservative HQ. It was quite clear they were egging the students on. I said earlier in the week, this is a time of maximum danger for (any government) during summer recess. I am, however, extremely frustrated that we always seem to be reactive, rather than pro-active. They should have forseen this and that the French wouldn't do us any favours. If some of them are genuine asylum seekers, then they would only be to glad to claim asylum in Italy, not wait weeks, months until they can get here.
If, and we shall have to see what the legislation actually says, every public sector worker dealing face to face with the public is going to have to speak fluent English then the NHS is going to be in big trouble. I suspect, though, that a new definition of "fluent" will be constructed and this will turn out to be another Cameron wheeze.
Since this proposed measure would discriminate indirectly on the grounds of nationality, it is prima facie contrary to article 3 of Council and Parliament Regulation 2011/492/EU. There is an exception in respect of conditions of employment 'relating to linguistic knowledge by reason of the nature of the post to be filled'. This was interpreted fairly liberally in relation to the predecessor regulation in Groener v Minister for Education [1990] 1 CMLR 401, where the Court of Justice upheld the legality of forcing those who taught art in the English language to be able to speak Irish. Whether the court (which is not bound by its previous decisions) would take the same approach today is an open question. It is quite difficult to argue that knowledge of the English language is in fact necessary, as opposed to desirable, in every post involving interaction with members of the public.
Would anyone challenging this be entitled to legal aid?
Perhaps some of the newbie intake in GE2015 will show through shortly? IIRC there are a couple of dozen who nominated Corbyn on principle, so may see a bit more limelight than they'd get otherwise.
If Corbyn does 'succeed' in pulling Labour significantly to the left - maybe there's another Kinnock Snr type in there to drag them back to reality by GE2025?
What will be the effect of the reality of a Labour party dominated by the hard left? Burnham Kendall and Cooper in their mid 40s face the real prospect of no government roles for 10 years, a time when in their mid 50s most top political careers are usually over. These caalculations are being made throughout the Labour party. The effect of Corbyn winning will be a massive loss of the little talent that is still in the party.
Kinnock lost two elections just to get Labour back as a party able to compete.
Perhaps some of the newbie intake in GE2015 will show through shortly? IIRC there are a couple of dozen who nominated Corbyn on principle, so may see a bit more limelight than they'd get otherwise.
If Corbyn does 'succeed' in pulling Labour significantly to the left - maybe there's another Kinnock Snr type in there to drag them back to reality by GE2025?
What will be the effect of the reality of a Labour party dominated by the hard left? Burnham Kendall and Cooper in their mid 40s face the real prospect of no government roles for 10 years, a time when in their mid 50s most top political careers are usually over. These caalculations are being made throughout the Labour party. The effect of Corbyn winning will be a massive loss of the little talent that is still in the party.
Kinnock lost two elections just to get Labour back as a party able to compete.
Completely off topic, but this place is the best source of out of the way knowledge that I know.
Does anyone know how to print from Google Maps? It used to be possible, if a bit of a faff, but the current version seems to have barred it completely.
If not Google Maps does anyone know an on-line source for printable maps of the City of London (I need to zoom in to very detailed level)?
Kieran may not be fully understanding the logic of some Labour supporters who are backing Corbyn despite not being obviously right on left wingers. The New Labour approach was fine in its time and did well. But it was never going to last forever. It just didn't work last time. .
The last time the New Labour approach was tried Labour won a majority of 66.
But Labour polled fewer votes in 2005 than in 2015.
1: No it didn't, it polled more in 2005. 2: There were three million more votes in 2015.
In terms of absolute votes cast Labour polled more votes in 2015!
Perhaps some of the newbie intake in GE2015 will show through shortly? IIRC there are a couple of dozen who nominated Corbyn on principle, so may see a bit more limelight than they'd get otherwise.
If Corbyn does 'succeed' in pulling Labour significantly to the left - maybe there's another Kinnock Snr type in there to drag them back to reality by GE2025?
What will be the effect of the reality of a Labour party dominated by the hard left? Burnham Kendall and Cooper in their mid 40s face the real prospect of no government roles for 10 years, a time when in their mid 50s most top political careers are usually over. These caalculations are being made throughout the Labour party. The effect of Corbyn winning will be a massive loss of the little talent that is still in the party.
Kinnock lost two elections just to get Labour back as a party able to compete.
Maybe 2020 is 83, 2025 is 87 and 2030 is 92 but opposition win that time around?
Completely off topic, but this place is the best source of out of the way knowledge that I know.
Does anyone know how to print from Google Maps? It used to be possible, if a bit of a faff, but the current version seems to have barred it completely.
If not Google Maps does anyone know an on-line source for printable maps of the City of London (I need to zoom in to very detailed level)?
Kieran may not be fully understanding the logic of some Labour supporters who are backing Corbyn despite not being obviously right on left wingers. The New Labour approach was fine in its time and did well. But it was never going to last forever. It just didn't work last time. .
The last time the New Labour approach was tried Labour won a majority of 66.
But Labour polled fewer votes in 2005 than in 2015.
1: No it didn't, it polled more in 2005. 2: There were three million more votes in 2015.
In terms of absolute votes cast Labour polled more votes in 2015!
You could zoom in, press PrtSc and paste that into Paint or whatever editing app you have then Save as jpg file. I use it all the time for screengrabs.
Completely off topic, but this place is the best source of out of the way knowledge that I know.
Does anyone know how to print from Google Maps? It used to be possible, if a bit of a faff, but the current version seems to have barred it completely.
If not Google Maps does anyone know an on-line source for printable maps of the City of London (I need to zoom in to very detailed level)?
Kieran may not be fully understanding the logic of some Labour supporters who are backing Corbyn despite not being obviously right on left wingers. The New Labour approach was fine in its time and did well. But it was never going to last forever. It just didn't work last time. .
The last time the New Labour approach was tried Labour won a majority of 66.
But Labour polled fewer votes in 2005 than in 2015.
1: No it didn't, it polled more in 2005. 2: There were three million more votes in 2015.
In terms of absolute votes cast Labour polled more votes in 2015!
Completely off topic, but this place is the best source of out of the way knowledge that I know.
Does anyone know how to print from Google Maps? It used to be possible, if a bit of a faff, but the current version seems to have barred it completely.
If not Google Maps does anyone know an on-line source for printable maps of the City of London (I need to zoom in to very detailed level)?
Completely off topic, but this place is the best source of out of the way knowledge that I know.
Does anyone know how to print from Google Maps? It used to be possible, if a bit of a faff, but the current version seems to have barred it completely.
If not Google Maps does anyone know an on-line source for printable maps of the City of London (I need to zoom in to very detailed level)?
I tend to use http://www.streetmap.co.uk Format is like an A-to-Z rather than pictorial, but it depends what you need it for.
What if the Europe vote is No and Cameron said Yes; the Europe vote is Yes and Cameron said No; Cameron puts it up to Scotland to teach Nicola a lesson, but instead of staying they leave? Or God forbid, another recession.
"Considering Scotland has had two referendums and is already talking about a third don't talk nonsense. "
"don't talk nonsense" eh? Physician heal thyself. There has been only one independence referendum or 3 referendums if you count those on purely Scottish devolution issues. Certainly not 2 on any rational analysis.
I don't think Labour supporters know how long seven years in the wilderness is.
Seven years?
Well, I wasn't including Miliband as "the wilderness", although that is arguable (after all, they were polling ahead for much of the interim), so seven years = 2015-2022, when they can replace Corbyn (or other) if they really believe they won't win 2020.
Completely off topic, but this place is the best source of out of the way knowledge that I know.
Does anyone know how to print from Google Maps? It used to be possible, if a bit of a faff, but the current version seems to have barred it completely.
If not Google Maps does anyone know an on-line source for printable maps of the City of London (I need to zoom in to very detailed level)?
With Firefox you just use File>Print on the toolbar options.
What if the Europe vote is No and Cameron said Yes; the Europe vote is Yes and Cameron said No; Cameron puts it up to Scotland to teach Nicola a lesson, but instead of staying they leave? Or God forbid, another recession.
Labour could win under any leader next time.
All good points, although the chances of Cameron endorsing or campaigning for "No" in the EU referendum are very slim. The "disaster for Labour" narrative seems in part a reaction to the sheer surprise of many in the party of defeat at the general election. Victory at the next election, or at the very least ousting the Conservatives from government is achievable.
If some of them are genuine asylum seekers, then they would only be to glad to claim asylum in Italy, not wait weeks, months until they can get here.
Exactly. They are economic - and illegal - migrants.
Where are the women and children? Just young men wanting to earn money. (Which is nothing wrong per se, but we do have controls exactly so that the whole of Africa doesn't just move to Europe to earn more money.)
The problem is the lack of good - or indeed, any - government, endless wars, stupid natural increase in population (ie more births than deaths), etc etc, in Africa. This is only the beginning. One only has to glance at the demographics of that continent to see what's in store.
What if the Europe vote is No and Cameron said Yes; the Europe vote is Yes and Cameron said No; Cameron puts it up to Scotland to teach Nicola a lesson, but instead of staying they leave? Or God forbid, another recession.
Labour could win under any leader next time.
All good points, although the chances of Cameron endorsing or campaigning for "No" in the EU referendum are very slim. The "disaster for Labour" narrative seems in part a reaction to the sheer surprise of many in the party of defeat at the general election. Victory at the next election, or at the very least ousting the Conservatives from government is achievable.
I think there is more chance of Corbyn leading a general strike than Cameron endorsing No.
He'd wipe the floor with them, but as so often happens - he's such a big personality that he's got better options outside the bubble. Even if he hadn't lost his seat - another 5 yrs in oppo would be very frustrating for him.
Would Ed Balls have been a better candidate for Labour leader had he been re-elected?
He is at least seen as aheavy weight, tough and a big beast to be reckoned with, unlike the current light weight candidates.
I agree. But I think he had already agreed with Yvette that if she was running he wouldn't. There was a long interview with him in yesterday's Telegraph. He's not planning to return despite Gordon urging him to asap.
If some of them are genuine asylum seekers, then they would only be to glad to claim asylum in Italy, not wait weeks, months until they can get here.
Exactly. They are economic - and illegal - migrants.
Where are the women and children? Just young men wanting to earn money. (Which is nothing wrong per se, but we do have controls exactly so that the whole of Africa doesn't just move to Europe to earn more money.)
The problem is the lack of good - or indeed, any - government, endless wars, stupid natural increase in population (ie more births than deaths), etc etc, in Africa. This is only the beginning. One only has to glance at the demographics of that continent to see what's in store.
Not sure this is right in the sense that the wait time for refugee status is months or years in UK and France. Not sure about Italy, but I doubt it is a shorter period.
Is it just me - or is this really weird and creepy?
The Church of England has spoken out against the increasingly popular trend of digging up and shifting the remains of buried loved ones when moving home.
Incredibly, relatives of those deceased are applying for licences to exhume remains at a rate of 25 per week.
Such a move does not 'sit easily' with Christian concept of entrusting the deceased person to God, a spokesman for the Church told MailOnline
Kieran may not be fully understanding the logic of some Labour supporters who are backing Corbyn despite not being obviously right on left wingers. The New Labour approach was fine in its time and did well. But it was never going to last forever. It just didn't work last time. .
The last time the New Labour approach was tried Labour won a majority of 66.
But Labour polled fewer votes in 2005 than in 2015.
1: No it didn't, it polled more in 2005. 2: There were three million more votes in 2015.
In terms of absolute votes cast Labour polled more votes in 2015!
No it didn't!
2005: 9,552,436 2015: 9,347,304
Who cares? At GE2015, Lab increased its vote by 1.4% on GE2010! At this rate, we should be able to hit the dizzying heights of 32.8% in 2020!
I don't think Labour supporters know how long seven years in the wilderness is.
Seven years?
Well, I wasn't including Miliband as "the wilderness", although that is arguable (after all, they were polling ahead for much of the interim), so seven years = 2015-2022, when they can replace Corbyn (or other) if they really believe they won't win 2020.
I was just pointing out that Labour supporters know exactly "how long seven years in the wilderness is". Seven years.
Comments
Maybe that would have never happened if Blair employed a bit more direct democracy.
EDIT: Also I'm pretty sure there were quite a few devolution referendums, let's give England the same courtesy.
The gov.uk internet pages spell out exactly what asylum seekers can expect upon arrival in Britain, from State cash handouts of £36.95 per person each week to free accommodation, education and healthcare.
Using official figures for the average annual sums spent per head on healthcare, education and rent in the UK, the total outlay including cash support for a family of two adults and two children is about £35,300 a year."
"By contrast, the French government website, service-public.fr is far less user-friendly.
And, although asylum seekers are in theory entitled to accommodation, there is a long waiting list as the number of people living rough in The Jungle proves.
Human Rights Watch say 15,000 asylum seekers are waiting for a place in a reception centre in France."
Inaction by French Police is photographed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3182533/
"Hundreds of migrants who have smuggled themselves into Britain from Calais are being put up in hotels at taxpayers' expense.
Stowaways who have illegally entered the country on lorries or trains through the Channel Tunnel are being transported across England and given their own hotel room, three cooked meals a day and a cash allowance of £35 a week – all within days of entering the UK.
They are being accommodated in hotels boasting pools, gyms and spas even before claiming asylum, because official reception centres cannot cope with the recent surge in illegal arrivals."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3182519/
That is better than what many OAPs get.
I'm suspicious of that, frankly.
When it came to throwing powers at Scotland and Wales there was no such need. But the levelling of the playing field is somehow a different matter.
There are only two legitimate ways forward [within the union]:
Axe Holyrood and the Welsh Assembly
Establish an English Parliament
I had a chat with a left-leaning mate yesterday. Although he wasn't sure he got a leader vote as his union might not be affiliated, he would probably veer towards Corbyn he says. His logic being that a Corbyn led Lab party would force the political debate onto left ideas such as anti-austerity, get rid of Trident etc. It would open up the public to a whole raft of alternatives which the last twenty years of Blair-Cameron have kept firmly in the closet.
I remain calm in the face of all this and slightly increased my bets on Yvette this morning.
Just because 10% of the population doesn't want to have Parliament decide it doesn't mean the rest of the UK has an issue with Parliament doing its job. But those who've decided to quit should go on issues they're not elected to solve.
Hilary Clinton - very strange and shady woman, not to mention rude and arrogant, who has convinced several not over-bright party activists that she is brilliant but had a poor track record as Secretary of State and who has never done any serious work outside a minor role on the Watergate investigation;
Joe Biden - would be the oldest President ever elected, and is also not exactly noted for his verbal fluency and common sense;
Al Gore - couldn't even beat George W. Bush, and is chiefly famous for his penchant for luxury flights while going to lecture on the evils of global warming caused by er, unnecessary flying.
And the Republicans, if anything, are even worse. Just look at Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, before running screaming for the nearest fallout shelter.
There's got to be room for a bold, untainted candidate from either party to enter the race and fire the imagination, a la Obama (although it would be difficult to emulate him after 7 1/2 years of disillusionment). Does anyone have any possible suggestions in mind?
We need a tidying up exercise of MPs from parts of the UK where Parliament decides it voting in Parliament. Problem over.
In many ways, this would be helpful and put a final end to Socialism. In other ways, since Socialists are very bad losers, I can see it causing all sorts of trouble (as in, violence) if they realise that everyone hates them.
For UK-wide issues the Tories would have whatever UK-wide share of the seats they've won.
For England-only issues the Tories would have whatever England-only share of the seats they've won.
Democracy. Clean and easy.
The SNP's platform of Independence was rejected by the electorate of Scotland repeatedly at general elections over many decades but that did not lead the party to abandon its programme. Eventually its persistence has been rewarded!
The Tories won the seat. And that is why Andy Burnham is the wrong choice for Labour
A Mid-Staffs voter.
If Corbyn does 'succeed' in pulling Labour significantly to the left - maybe there's another Kinnock Snr type in there to drag them back to reality by GE2025?
We need to fix the West Lothian Question - which should have been done 17 years ago - and wait for emotions to cool before having a proper constitutional convention in due course.
There is no reconcilable position that will keep all parties happy. The SNP want independence, Labour don't. The Tories want English MPs to decide English issues, Labour don't. Simply having a committee called a convention would no more resolve the matter than Leveson resolved the media.
We have a convention for solving constitutional issues, its called Parliament. Funny that.
And you need to be honest with yourself: you fear EVEL because you fear that it will entrench a centre-right majority in England. So you want to punt it into the long-grss while pretending to be all high & mighty.
EVEL solves a problem which was identified as long ago as the 1970s and which should have been fixed in 1997 but was not because Labour saw the status quo as being in their partisan advantage. EVEL corrects that error. It is in line with the British tradition of incremental reforms. There is an argument for a constitutional convention in due course but - as you so nicely demonstrated - it will get bogged down in discussions of other constitutional reforms (e.g. electoral systems) and the result is that the fundamental unfairness of the current set up will never be addressed
'That's why we need a constitutional convention. As things stand, what we have is a piecemeal approach that can be undone at any time, depending on the whim of the government elected into power by a minority of voters. '
A piecemeal approach was perfectly acceptable when New Labour (elected by a minority of voters) gave devolution to Scotland & Wales,but EV4EL needs a full constitutional convention.
Your having a laugh.
The problem with a constitutional convention is that no issue will be off the table. Everything from entrenchment, judicial rather than parliamentary supremacy, bills of rights, the voting system for the House of Commons, the nature, functions and composition of the second chamber, and the relations between the four parts of the UK will be up for grabs. The idea that a bipartisan and workable agreement will be reached on all these matters any time soon by any convention is difficult to believe. A constitutional convention (while it would be much loved by academics) looks like a strategy for kicking issues which we can resolve now into the long grass.
Knowledge of language is not the same as nationality. Especially given across the EU 93% of primary school pupils are taught English it is hard to claim that only the English speak English.
2: There were three million more votes in 2015.
2015 - 9.3 million.
Granted, it's not a huge difference in terms of raw numbers. But if you poll fewer votes on a higher turnout it's what we call a worse result.
For what it's worth I've worked in the City for the last 30 years and played an integral part in growing a number of successful global businesses.
I'm well aware that life isn't fair - I was diagnosed over 5 years ago with MND at the age of 46 !!
They were also extremely friendly, polite and welcoming, which given the behaviour of their elected representatives, came as a very pleasant surprise.
Fortunately, not least for Scotland, even though the SNP continue to ride high, they do not equal Scotland.
Simply put: Scottish MPs should not have a vote over matters in England that English MPs can not vote on in Scotland.
It really is as simple as that.
There is directly applicable EU legislation on precisely this subject, which can be read here. That is subject to interpretation by the court (as it has been in the past), but one does not have to await a court decision to express a view. In any event, all that I said was that the legality of the government's proposal (if extended to other EU nationals) was an open question.
I said earlier in the week, this is a time of maximum danger for (any government) during summer recess. I am, however, extremely frustrated that we always seem to be reactive, rather than pro-active. They should have forseen this and that the French wouldn't do us any favours.
If some of them are genuine asylum seekers, then they would only be to glad to claim asylum in Italy, not wait weeks, months until they can get here.
c10k parents and children receive £36.95 each a week - this will be changed to same rules as childless claimants http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1588600.ece
Does anyone know how to print from Google Maps? It used to be possible, if a bit of a faff, but the current version seems to have barred it completely.
If not Google Maps does anyone know an on-line source for printable maps of the City of London (I need to zoom in to very detailed level)?
RIP
2005: 9,552,436
2015: 9,347,304
http://www.openstreetmap.org/
What if the Europe vote is No and Cameron said Yes; the Europe vote is Yes and Cameron said No; Cameron puts it up to Scotland to teach Nicola a lesson, but instead of staying they leave? Or God forbid, another recession.
Labour could win under any leader next time.
"Considering Scotland has had two referendums and is already talking about a third don't talk nonsense. "
"don't talk nonsense" eh? Physician heal thyself. There has been only one independence referendum or 3 referendums if you count those on purely Scottish devolution issues. Certainly not 2 on any rational analysis.
Would Ed Balls have been a better candidate for Labour leader had he been re-elected?
He is at least seen as aheavy weight, tough and a big beast to be reckoned with, unlike the current light weight candidates.
Where are the women and children? Just young men wanting to earn money. (Which is nothing wrong per se, but we do have controls exactly so that the whole of Africa doesn't just move to Europe to earn more money.)
The problem is the lack of good - or indeed, any - government, endless wars, stupid natural increase in population (ie more births than deaths), etc etc, in Africa. This is only the beginning. One only has to glance at the demographics of that continent to see what's in store.