My thanks to those who have offered suggestions as to how to get printable maps for the City.
Mr. Charles, a few years ago I used to my love of history the City to put together self-guided walks. They were well received and I even made a little money. Anyway, the cd on which my documents were stored has since been lost and the computer on which they were produced went the way of all flesh a long time ago. I have now been asked to produce a walk for my son to do with his girlfriend. To produce such a walk means the ability to produce a map that will show all the little courts and alleyways in the City. Without that the walk with either need a guide or be so short of interesting detail that one might as well goto a tour company.
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.
I think it's like a wind-chill factor; it will feel a lot longer than 7 years.
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.
I sense a bit of an edge to your views which will have no doubt shone through to the folks you were dealing with.
At the moment SNP and Scottish Tory supporters are indeed riding the crest of their respective waves. However, a number of Tories I know were extremely pissed off with David Cameron's no 2nd Indyref on my watch speech, which has pretty much put paid to their chances of a good showing in Holyrood 2016.
Also worth noting that Scottish Labour's dwindling band of supporters are as unimpressed with the omnishambles leadership elections as the next man. Labour's continued woes will probably see their polling numbers fall ever closer to 15%. Murray's failure to vote against the welfare bill isn't going down well - to then give an interview stating that he'd voted against it by abstaining was a classic. Harriet Harman sitting sipping a cool glass of white wine on the H of C balcony as the welfare vote was taking place and Lord Sewel's antics will not help SLAB's case.
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.
I think it's like a wind-chill factor; it will feel a lot longer than 7 years.
I think Charles realised that's what I meant!
When anyone says "Mr Charles" I can only ever read in Leonardo DiCaprio's accent from Inception...
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!
Had it not been for Scotland that is probably where it would have ended up 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
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
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
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
My thanks to those who have offered suggestions as to how to get printable maps for the City.
Mr. Charles, a few years ago I used to my love of history the City to put together self-guided walks. They were well received and I even made a little money. Anyway, the cd on which my documents were stored has since been lost and the computer on which they were produced went the way of all flesh a long time ago. I have now been asked to produce a walk for my son to do with his girlfriend. To produce such a walk means the ability to produce a map that will show all the little courts and alleyways in the City. Without that the walk with either need a guide or be so short of interesting detail that one might as well goto a tour company.
I am sure you will already considered them, but can I suggest the walk from Temple Tube via Temple Place, up Middle Temple Lane and through the court (takes you past both the Great Hall and Temple Church) and out onto Fleet Street (near Ye Olde Cock Tavern). You can then swing past the Dragon and head up to Dr. Johnson's House (stopping at St. Dunstan's if you are so minded), and from there up Ludgate Hill to St. Paul's, through the back streets to end up at Austinfriars?
At the moment SNP and Scottish Tory supporters are indeed riding the crest of their respective waves. However, a number of Tories I know were extremely pissed off with David Cameron's no 2nd Indyref on my watch speech, which has pretty much put paid to their chances of a good showing in Holyrood 2016.
I know this isn't true, how can you possibly know Scottish Tories plural? Everyone knows there is only one Scottish Tory!!!
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
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
It's not about whether it works or not, it is merely a statement of fact. You do not understand my argument. If you did, you would understand that I accept there is a centre right majority in England.
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.
I think it's like a wind-chill factor; it will feel a lot longer than 7 years.
I think Charles realised that's what I meant!
When anyone says "Mr Charles" I can only ever read in Leonardo DiCaprio's accent from Inception...
"I'll tell you a riddle. You're waiting for a train, a train that will take you far away. You know where you hope this train will take you, but you don't know for sure. But it doesn't matter. How can it not matter to you where that train will take you?"
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!
Had it not been for Scotland that is probably where it would have ended up in 2015!
Labour's vote went up 3.5% in England, bizarrely enough.
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
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
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
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
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
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Just read this thread. Your morning's contribution to PB has been nothing but a spittoon-full of self-serving partisan dribble. Spare yourself the risk of dehydration. Shut up.
My thanks to those who have offered suggestions as to how to get printable maps for the City.
Mr. Charles, a few years ago I used to my love of history the City to put together self-guided walks. They were well received and I even made a little money. Anyway, the cd on which my documents were stored has since been lost and the computer on which they were produced went the way of all flesh a long time ago. I have now been asked to produce a walk for my son to do with his girlfriend. To produce such a walk means the ability to produce a map that will show all the little courts and alleyways in the City. Without that the walk with either need a guide or be so short of interesting detail that one might as well goto a tour company.
I am sure you will already considered them, but can I suggest the walk from Temple Tube via Temple Place, up Middle Temple Lane and through the court (takes you past both the Great Hall and Temple Church) and out onto Fleet Street (near Ye Olde Cock Tavern). You can then swing past the Dragon and head up to Dr. Johnson's House (stopping at St. Dunstan's if you are so minded), and from there up Ludgate Hill to St. Paul's, through the back streets to end up at Austinfriars?
St Pauls to the Bank, then Lloyds, Leadenhall Market, Fenchurch Street and the Monument.
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
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Just read this thread. Your morning's contribution to PB has been nothing but a spittoon-full of self-serving partisan dribble. Spare yourself the risk of dehydration. Shut up.
Did PB have such a high opinion of Ed Balls prior to him losing his Morley and Outwood seat in May?
As for Kinnock, I don't know why he stayed on after 1987. Really, he should have stepped down. Labour could have won 1992 with an electable candidate.
I agree with Kieran btw: and I don't understand how so many Corbyn supporters aren't seeing this logic. That said, you have to question whether Burnham and Cooper would really push Labour that much forward from where they are now.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
My thanks to those who have offered suggestions as to how to get printable maps for the City.
Mr. Charles, a few years ago I used to my love of history the City to put together self-guided walks. They were well received and I even made a little money. Anyway, the cd on which my documents were stored has since been lost and the computer on which they were produced went the way of all flesh a long time ago. I have now been asked to produce a walk for my son to do with his girlfriend. To produce such a walk means the ability to produce a map that will show all the little courts and alleyways in the City. Without that the walk with either need a guide or be so short of interesting detail that one might as well goto a tour company.
I am sure you will already considered them, but can I suggest the walk from Temple Tube via Temple Place, up Middle Temple Lane and through the court (takes you past both the Great Hall and Temple Church) and out onto Fleet Street (near Ye Olde Cock Tavern). You can then swing past the Dragon and head up to Dr. Johnson's House (stopping at St. Dunstan's if you are so minded), and from there up Ludgate Hill to St. Paul's, through the back streets to end up at Austinfriars?
St Pauls to the Bank, then Lloyds, Leadenhall Market, Fenchurch Street and the Monument.
Too many major roads. You'd hit Cheapside, Cornhill and Bishopsgate all of which are pretty dull.
My route hits part of Fleet Street, Ludgate Circus and Ludgate Hill (which at least has a nice aspect of St. Paul's)
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
Yesterday someone remarked on here about the unbalanced nature of BBC News Dateline London. By chance I just tuned in and a real leftie lovein. Supposedly a group of balanced views from foreign correspondents. We have Michael Goldfarb a leftie that has written for The Guardian and New York Times, a lady from BBC Turkey who set out the positives of Corbyn representing the youth, Owen Jones (a foreign correspondent for Socialists?) and a Belgian leftie Marc Roche who describes himself as "disappointed by capitalism" and he has published three critical books on capitalism's downward slides. Should be called Dateline Socialism.
Did PB have such a high opinion of Ed Balls prior to him losing his Morley and Outwood seat in May?
As for Kinnock, I don't know why he stayed on after 1987. Really, he should have stepped down. Labour could have won 1992 with an electable candidate.
I agree with Kieran btw: and I don't understand how so many Corbyn supporters aren't seeing this logic. That said, you have to question whether Burnham and Cooper would really push Labour that much forward from where they are now.
Yesterday someone remarked on here about the unbalanced nature of BBC News Dateline London. By chance I just tuned in and a real leftie lovein. Supposedly a group of balanced views from foreign correspondents. We have Michael Goldfarb a leftie that has written for The Guardian and New York Times, a lady from BBC Turkey who set out the positives of Corbyn representing the youth, Owen Jones (a foreign correspondent for Socialists?) and a Belgian leftie Marc Roche who describes himself as "disappointed by capitalism" and he has published three critical books on capitalism's downward slides. Should be called Dateline Socialism.
Did PB have such a high opinion of Ed Balls prior to him losing his Morley and Outwood seat in May?
As for Kinnock, I don't know why he stayed on after 1987. Really, he should have stepped down. Labour could have won 1992 with an electable candidate.
I agree with Kieran btw: and I don't understand how so many Corbyn supporters aren't seeing this logic. That said, you have to question whether Burnham and Cooper would really push Labour that much forward from where they are now.
Kinnock needed another 5 years to get rid of the militants? Jesus H Christ. This is why I can't see Corbyn staying until 2020. The Labour establishment will rally round a candidate.
My thanks to those who have offered suggestions as to how to get printable maps for the City.
Mr. Charles, a few years ago I used to my love of history the City to put together self-guided walks. They were well received and I even made a little money. Anyway, the cd on which my documents were stored has since been lost and the computer on which they were produced went the way of all flesh a long time ago. I have now been asked to produce a walk for my son to do with his girlfriend. To produce such a walk means the ability to produce a map that will show all the little courts and alleyways in the City. Without that the walk with either need a guide or be so short of interesting detail that one might as well goto a tour company.
Did PB have such a high opinion of Ed Balls prior to him losing his Morley and Outwood seat in May?
As for Kinnock, I don't know why he stayed on after 1987. Really, he should have stepped down. Labour could have won 1992 with an electable candidate.
I agree with Kieran btw: and I don't understand how so many Corbyn supporters aren't seeing this logic. That said, you have to question whether Burnham and Cooper would really push Labour that much forward from where they are now.
Kinnock needed another 5 years to get rid of the militants? Jesus H Christ. This is why I can't see Corbyn staying until 2020. The Labour establishment will rally round a candidate.
Did PB have such a high opinion of Ed Balls prior to him losing his Morley and Outwood seat in May?
As for Kinnock, I don't know why he stayed on after 1987. Really, he should have stepped down. Labour could have won 1992 with an electable candidate.
I agree with Kieran btw: and I don't understand how so many Corbyn supporters aren't seeing this logic. That said, you have to question whether Burnham and Cooper would really push Labour that much forward from where they are now.
Kinnock needed another 5 years to get rid of the militants? Jesus H Christ. This is why I can't see Corbyn staying until 2020. The Labour establishment will rally round a candidate.
The Labour establishment does not decide, though. What will do for Corbyn is carnage at the ballot box - especially resounding defeat in Scotland and London next year.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
I've skimmed this thread so apologies if I've missed it, but have you said who would comprise a putative constitutional convention? It is rather important, wouldn't you agree?
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
How does a constitutional convention resulting in an English parliament with an entrenched right wing majority save Labour's arse? That looks tricky to me. But what it may do is resolve the tensions in the current UK constitutional settlement. Obviously, it will need all sides to go into it with a level of goodwill, but if the Tories, labour and the LDs are serious about saving the UK then surely they all have an interest in that being the case.
That's why we need a constitutional convention..........
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
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Southam Observer. You should just replay Dateline London on the BBC News Channel and feel all leftie and worthy. The fact that you are stuck opposing whatever the Conservatives do is a problem that you have. It is unbalanced but that is where we are. EVEL is here because of a mess Labour created. Independence for Scotland is probably inevitable because of the mess that Labour and the Lib Dems created. Unfortunately once the game of anti-westminster scottish nationalism was played by Labour and the Lib Dems aligning with the SNP, they fed the nationalist beast and it is only going to end IMHO in independence. One main party opposed the Scottish Assembly and that party was effectively ganged up on by the scots nationalists and psuedo nationalists in Labour and the Lib Dems.
Did PB have such a high opinion of Ed Balls prior to him losing his Morley and Outwood seat in May?
As for Kinnock, I don't know why he stayed on after 1987. Really, he should have stepped down. Labour could have won 1992 with an electable candidate.
I agree with Kieran btw: and I don't understand how so many Corbyn supporters aren't seeing this logic. That said, you have to question whether Burnham and Cooper would really push Labour that much forward from where they are now.
"Kinnock ... should have stepped down. Labour could have won 1992 with an electable candidate."
Yeah, maybe they could have elected Jeremy Corbyn.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
I've skimmed this thread so apologies if I've missed it, but have you said who would comprise a putative constitutional convention? It is rather important, wouldn't you agree?
All parties that in at least one constituent part of the UK received over 5% of the vote at the last general election would be invited to send representatives and to take part.
Did PB have such a high opinion of Ed Balls prior to him losing his Morley and Outwood seat in May?
As for Kinnock, I don't know why he stayed on after 1987. Really, he should have stepped down. Labour could have won 1992 with an electable candidate.
I agree with Kieran btw: and I don't understand how so many Corbyn supporters aren't seeing this logic. That said, you have to question whether Burnham and Cooper would really push Labour that much forward from where they are now.
Kinnock needed another 5 years to get rid of the militants? Jesus H Christ. This is why I can't see Corbyn staying until 2020. The Labour establishment will rally round a candidate.
Kinnock also had some moderates in the largest unions to fund the party. The next Labour Leader does not have that luxury. Unless the Govt reforms on funding really bite, these millions are only available to hard left policies. For example Unite might switch to the SNP in Scotland.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
As virtually any English bill on devolved matters will have budgetary implications for Scotland, then surely Scottish MPs should be able to vote on it. The ludicrous thing about this debate is that David Cameron is sitting with a working majority, its not the SNP's fault that he can't control his own party, which became clear on the fox hunting vote.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
It removes the manifest unfairness that is being used by the SNP to drive a wedge between the English and the Scots.
Then, when emotions are cooler, you can take a look at the system as a whole
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
As virtually any English bill on devolved matters will have budgetary implications for Scotland, then surely Scottish MPs should be able to vote on it. The ludicrous thing about this debate is that David Cameron is sitting with a working majority, its not the SNP's fault that he can't control his own party, which became clear on the fox hunting vote.
Then the obvious solution is to get rid of the Barnett formula. The SNP, reasonable folks that they are, should clearly support this change. We could change it to a needs-based measure, which the SNP, as good social democrats, could surely support.
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. Even with a leader with better presentation skills than Ed it would not have won a comfortable majority or even a slim one. Labour has to do something different. Whatever comes out of a Corbyn victory will be different. Sometimes only a bold step can win.
And speaking personally, I have had enough of focus group politics for now .
There is different and different though. Not all different is good.
If, for example, you are rock climbing a cliff face and come to a smooth area of rock with no cracks, finger holds or foot holds, you do need to take a different approach which may involve some back tracking. But simply jumping off the cliff is not a helpful kind of different.
My thanks to those who have offered suggestions as to how to get printable maps for the City.
Mr. Charles, a few years ago I used to my love of history the City to put together self-guided walks. They were well received and I even made a little money. Anyway, the cd on which my documents were stored has since been lost and the computer on which they were produced went the way of all flesh a long time ago. I have now been asked to produce a walk for my son to do with his girlfriend. To produce such a walk means the ability to produce a map that will show all the little courts and alleyways in the City. Without that the walk with either need a guide or be so short of interesting detail that one might as well goto a tour company.
I am sure you will already considered them, but can I suggest the walk from Temple Tube via Temple Place, up Middle Temple Lane and through the court (takes you past both the Great Hall and Temple Church) and out onto Fleet Street (near Ye Olde Cock Tavern). You can then swing past the Dragon and head up to Dr. Johnson's House (stopping at St. Dunstan's if you are so minded), and from there up Ludgate Hill to St. Paul's, through the back streets to end up at Austinfriars?
I suggest a walk around the City should begin at the site of Temple Bar, head eastwards, then stop at every City pub which is more than 100 years old, for an alcoholic drink.
The walk will soon become interestingly circuitous, and a lot more fun than following a map.
You talking about Fleet Street (the original site of Temple Bar - where the Dragon is by Child's offices) or Paternoster Square where it's been relocated? More nice pubs with the former...you might not even make it to Ludgate Circus
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
As virtually any English bill on devolved matters will have budgetary implications for Scotland, then surely Scottish MPs should be able to vote on it. The ludicrous thing about this debate is that David Cameron is sitting with a working majority, its not the SNP's fault that he can't control his own party, which became clear on the fox hunting vote.
How does fox hunting have budgetary implications for Scotland? It doesn't. You're talking pish. EV4EL.
might boost the grouse shooting among the frustrated sportsmen?
Yesterday someone remarked on here about the unbalanced nature of BBC News Dateline London. By chance I just tuned in and a real leftie lovein. Supposedly a group of balanced views from foreign correspondents. We have Michael Goldfarb a leftie that has written for The Guardian and New York Times, a lady from BBC Turkey who set out the positives of Corbyn representing the youth, Owen Jones (a foreign correspondent for Socialists?) and a Belgian leftie Marc Roche who describes himself as "disappointed by capitalism" and he has published three critical books on capitalism's downward slides. Should be called Dateline Socialism.
It is striking how the BBC can always find seven different shades of leftists to represent different views, but never manages to get more than one or two on the right of centre. Typically, if they even have two right-leaners, one is always a pro-European like Ken Clarke.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
It removes the manifest unfairness that is being used by the SNP to drive a wedge between the English and the Scots.
Then, when emotions are cooler, you can take a look at the system as a whole
All a Tory-imposed EV4EL does is provide the SNP with further grievance material and invite a change to the procedure once the Tories lose their majority, as they will at some stage - perhaps even as early as 2020. Then you will have another system until the Tories win again. And so on. Grayling has set a precedent that such changes do not even have to be subject to the full scrutiny provided for by an act of Parliament.
What it has also done is provide succour to the SNP by providing them with a grievance. A consensual, inclusive approach endorsed in a referendum would not run this risk. And, if the SNP declined to take part, would put the emphasis on them to explain why they were sitting it out.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
How does a constitutional convention resulting in an English parliament with an entrenched right wing majority save Labour's arse? That looks tricky to me. But what it may do is resolve the tensions in the current UK constitutional settlement. Obviously, it will need all sides to go into it with a level of goodwill, but if the Tories, labour and the LDs are serious about saving the UK then surely they all have an interest in that being the case.
The equation is Optimal Outcome = Ideal Structure * Probability of Implementation
If the Probability of Implementation is close to zero, it doesn't matter how great the proposals of the convention are.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
As virtually any English bill on devolved matters will have budgetary implications for Scotland, then surely Scottish MPs should be able to vote on it. The ludicrous thing about this debate is that David Cameron is sitting with a working majority, its not the SNP's fault that he can't control his own party, which became clear on the fox hunting vote.
How does fox hunting have budgetary implications for Scotland? It doesn't. You're talking pish. EV4EL.
Well, there will be increased border costs as migrant foxes move north to avoid the dangerous Tories and their dogs.
The LibDems are gearing up for Bournemouth, I note that there's going to be a motion opposing Trident renewal. What also caught my eye was the following quote - the mind boggles given the LibDems past scandals:
"Finally, the One Member One Vote constitutional amendments come back in their revised form after the Federal Executive got its backside well and truly spanked last year."
Did PB have such a high opinion of Ed Balls prior to him losing his Morley and Outwood seat in May?
As for Kinnock, I don't know why he stayed on after 1987. Really, he should have stepped down. Labour could have won 1992 with an electable candidate.
I agree with Kieran btw: and I don't understand how so many Corbyn supporters aren't seeing this logic. That said, you have to question whether Burnham and Cooper would really push Labour that much forward from where they are now.
I cannot recall any significant support on PB for Balls either before or after May!
I think Kinnock was right to stay on in 87, he had made a lot of progress electorally, from a very difficult starting position. I think this fetish for immediate resignation after a lost election is a poor development. It tends to lead to a fairly rash rush to appoint without a proper electoral autopsy.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
I've skimmed this thread so apologies if I've missed it, but have you said who would comprise a putative constitutional convention? It is rather important, wouldn't you agree?
All parties that in at least one constituent part of the UK received over 5% of the vote at the last general election would be invited to send representatives and to take part.
Would decisions have to be unanimous? Would any 'majority' report be immediately sent to referendum?
If not, the Tories would clearly be outvoted and by a large margin in the convention whereas they have just secured an overall majority in the Commons.
I don't like EVEL, still less an English Parliament. As I've argued here before (and there's strong support on the Tory backbenches for this option), the least bad route is to further reduce Scottish representation at Westminster (down to say 20 MPs?) but retain full voting rights. It worked well enough for 60 years when Northern Ireland had its own Parliament: it's a typical "British" pragmatic solution to constitutional messiness.
@SouthamObserver True - any other candidate other than Tessa Jowell is going down next year. The Tories will be smart enough to opt for Zac Goldsmith (who I think could be a really good mayor). Labour are doomed regarding Holyrood 2016 - doomed. Then there's the local council elections....and that will be interesting.
@TCPoliticalBetting I can see Labour slowly moving away from Union funding in time.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
I've skimmed this thread so apologies if I've missed it, but have you said who would comprise a putative constitutional convention? It is rather important, wouldn't you agree?
All parties that in at least one constituent part of the UK received over 5% of the vote at the last general election would be invited to send representatives and to take part.
And in what proportion?
Do you think it is right that the convention is dominated by the English? (The SNP's argument) But why should England's interests be sublimated to the wishes of the SNP (the English argument).
Yesterday someone remarked on here about the unbalanced nature of BBC News Dateline London. By chance I just tuned in and a real leftie lovein. Supposedly a group of balanced views from foreign correspondents. We have Michael Goldfarb a leftie that has written for The Guardian and New York Times, a lady from BBC Turkey who set out the positives of Corbyn representing the youth, Owen Jones (a foreign correspondent for Socialists?) and a Belgian leftie Marc Roche who describes himself as "disappointed by capitalism" and he has published three critical books on capitalism's downward slides. Should be called Dateline Socialism.
Plato, it counts as balanced as everyone knows that political views from the right of centre are just plain silly and mis-guided. So it is a balanced view of sensible policies across the left spectrum.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
As virtually any English bill on devolved matters will have budgetary implications for Scotland, then surely Scottish MPs should be able to vote on it. The ludicrous thing about this debate is that David Cameron is sitting with a working majority, its not the SNP's fault that he can't control his own party, which became clear on the fox hunting vote.
Indeed. EV4EL is a means for the Tory government to minimise the effects of backbench Tory rebellions and to reduce the power of MPs elected by English voters.
Yesterday someone remarked on here about the unbalanced nature of BBC News Dateline London. By chance I just tuned in and a real leftie lovein. Supposedly a group of balanced views from foreign correspondents. We have Michael Goldfarb a leftie that has written for The Guardian and New York Times, a lady from BBC Turkey who set out the positives of Corbyn representing the youth, Owen Jones (a foreign correspondent for Socialists?) and a Belgian leftie Marc Roche who describes himself as "disappointed by capitalism" and he has published three critical books on capitalism's downward slides. Should be called Dateline Socialism.
It is striking how the BBC can always find seven different shades of leftists to represent different views, but never manages to get more than one or two on the right of centre. Typically, if they even have two right-leaners, one is always a pro-European like Ken Clarke.
I guess they are just unlucky with their selections or only have the Guardian's book of contacts?
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
How does a constitutional convention resulting in an English parliament with an entrenched right wing majority save Labour's arse? That looks tricky to me. But what it may do is resolve the tensions in the current UK constitutional settlement. Obviously, it will need all sides to go into it with a level of goodwill, but if the Tories, labour and the LDs are serious about saving the UK then surely they all have an interest in that being the case.
Did not Labour enjoy an English majority from 1997 until 2005, and until 2010 could have governed with the LDs against the Cons?
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
I've skimmed this thread so apologies if I've missed it, but have you said who would comprise a putative constitutional convention? It is rather important, wouldn't you agree?
All parties that in at least one constituent part of the UK received over 5% of the vote at the last general election would be invited to send representatives and to take part.
Would decisions have to be unanimous? Would any 'majority' report be immediately sent to referendum?
If not, the Tories would clearly be outvoted and by a large margin in the convention whereas they have just secured an overall majority in the Commons.
I don't like EVEL, still less an English Parliament. As I've argued here before (and there's strong support on the Tory backbenches for this option), the least bad route is to further reduce Scottish representation at Westminster (down to say 20 MPs?) but retain full voting rights. It worked well enough for 60 years when Northern Ireland had its own Parliament: it's a typical "British" pragmatic solution to constitutional messiness.
The Tories would only be outvoted if they could not form alliances with other parties and given that centre right parties won a majority at the last election that should not be a major problem, should it? And then there is the fail-safe of the referendum anyway. Whatever was decided would have to be endorsed by the electorate.
@TCPoliticalBetting I can see Labour slowly moving away from Union funding in time.
Only if either the Govt reforms have a major effect or if the main leftie money in the largest unions is switched to other parties. No Labour Leader has presided over any complete changes. Even Miliband's have not yet come in ...... and leave massive power and money in the hands of the Leaders.
IIRC in his first speech, EdM dumped New Labour with abandon. Then he did the whole Blank Piece of Paper thing - which had loads and loads of input and went precisely nowhere.
How any leader can spend 5yrs conducting a policy review that ends up being described as Vote Labour and Win A Microwave by one of his own team speaks volumes.
Soundbites and no strategy. And often the soundbites were the most appalling jargon.
The LibDems are gearing up for Bournemouth, I note that there's going to be a motion opposing Trident renewal. What also caught my eye was the following quote - the mind boggles given the LibDems past scandals:
"Finally, the One Member One Vote constitutional amendments come back in their revised form after the Federal Executive got its backside well and truly spanked last year."
Opposing Trident? Farron re-aligns the Lib Dems with the new Corbyn era of Labour?
Just realised that I ran away just in time to finally be called a TURNIP this morning.
The more vociferous Nats need to realise that there are lots of us who have Scottish roots, love Scotland and the Scottish people - yet hate with a passion the idea that some with to break up our country. Hating the SNP and all they stand for is not hating Scotland, Far from it.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
How does a constitutional convention resulting in an English parliament with an entrenched right wing majority save Labour's arse? That looks tricky to me. But what it may do is resolve the tensions in the current UK constitutional settlement. Obviously, it will need all sides to go into it with a level of goodwill, but if the Tories, labour and the LDs are serious about saving the UK then surely they all have an interest in that being the case.
Did not Labour enjoy an English majority from 1997 until 2005, and until 2010 could have governed with the LDs against the Cons?
I think what a lot of people on here are struggling with is that my principle interest here is the maintenance of the UK, not the preservation of the Labour party. I am deeply proud of the former, I have very little affection for the latter. I want to remain a citizen of the UK and for my kids and grandchildren to enjoy the same. The fate of the Labour party is far less important to me.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
I've skimmed this thread so apologies if I've missed it, but have you said who would comprise a putative constitutional convention? It is rather important, wouldn't you agree?
All parties that in at least one constituent part of the UK received over 5% of the vote at the last general election would be invited to send representatives and to take part.
Would decisions have to be unanimous? Would any 'majority' report be immediately sent to referendum?
If not, the Tories would clearly be outvoted and by a large margin in the convention whereas they have just secured an overall majority in the Commons.
I don't like EVEL, still less an English Parliament. As I've argued here before (and there's strong support on the Tory backbenches for this option), the least bad route is to further reduce Scottish representation at Westminster (down to say 20 MPs?) but retain full voting rights. It worked well enough for 60 years when Northern Ireland had its own Parliament: it's a typical "British" pragmatic solution to constitutional messiness.
The Tories would only be outvoted if they could not form alliances with other parties and given that centre right parties won a majority at the last election that should not be a major problem, should it? And then there is the fail-safe of the referendum anyway. Whatever was decided would have to be endorsed by the electorate.
Centre-right majority in the convention? Only if you allocate seats in direct proportion to votes cast at UK level, namely Cons 37ish and UKIP 13ish? Is that what you are suggesting?
Ed Miliband was nowhere near New Labour. In fact I think half the problem was that Ed Miliband had no one idea what the hell he actually was.
Ed wasted five years. There was no real policy debate or direction, and most of the leading Shadow Cabinet members were part of the Blair/Brown governments so never in a strong position to critique it.
Kendall has some interesting, but underdeveloped, policies; and Corbyn was never part of New Labour so much better positioned to revise it.
Corbyn is a debator by nature and any party led by him will be a ferment of ideas.
Ed Miliband was nowhere near New Labour. In fact I think half the problem was that Ed Miliband had no one idea what the hell he actually was.
Ed wasted five years. There was no real policy debate or direction, and most of the leading Shadow Cabinet members were part of the Blair/Brown governments so never in a strong position to critique it.
Kendall has some interesting, but underdeveloped, policies; and Corbyn was never part of New Labour so much better positioned to revise it.
Corbyn is a debator by nature and any party led by him will be a ferment of ideas.
Corbyn's debate may consist of arguing whether 80% or 90% should be the top rate of tax.
Ed Miliband was nowhere near New Labour. In fact I think half the problem was that Ed Miliband had no one idea what the hell he actually was.
That was something EdM shared with his mentor Brown. Brown plotted his way to the top but had very little idea what he was going to do when he got there.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
As virtually any English bill on devolved matters will have budgetary implications for Scotland, then surely Scottish MPs should be able to vote on it. The ludicrous thing about this debate is that David Cameron is sitting with a working majority, its not the SNP's fault that he can't control his own party, which became clear on the fox hunting vote.
Which is why we need an English Parliament, or a proper EV4EL set up with no budgetary implications for Scotland should England's MPs vote one way or the other.
The hunting vote was designed purely to smoke out the SNP on something they had themselves said was a perfect example of an issue on which they would abstain. Mission Accomplished by the Tories there.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
I've skimmed this thread so apologies if I've missed it, but have you said who would comprise a putative constitutional convention? It is rather important, wouldn't you agree?
All parties that in at least one constituent part of the UK received over 5% of the vote at the last general election would be invited to send representatives and to take part.
Would decisions have to be unanimous? Would any 'majority' report be immediately sent to referendum?
I'd be happy with that, as an alternative to EV4EL. Probably much harder to achieve, constitutionally, however?
I don't see why. It's been done before. Probably the Scots should get nearer 30 seats than twenty in "fairness" terms. You could also reduce the number of Welsh and Northern Irish MPs too as both also have devolved assemblies. I can't really understand why Cameron in particular is so opposed. Anyway, the Government has a majority: it should use it (another beneficial spin-off is that it would reduce the number of MPs by around 50 and that's before the Boundary Commission re-starts its work!)
IIRC in his first speech, EdM dumped New Labour with abandon. Then he did the whole Blank Piece of Paper thing - which had loads and loads of input and went precisely nowhere.
How any leader can spend 5yrs conducting a policy review that ends up being described as Vote Labour and Win A Microwave by one of his own team speaks volumes.
Soundbites and no strategy. And often the soundbites were the most appalling jargon.
Ed Miliband was nowhere near New Labour. In fact I think half the problem was that Ed Miliband had no one idea what the hell he actually was.
LOL I forgot about the 'blank sheet of paper'. Sometimes I really wonder why on earth he stood as a leadership candidate in 2010. It feels like he genuinely wanted to move the party to left (probably where Kinnock was at in 1987-92) but then got scared about the implications and so set-up a policy review in order to try and fudge some ideas together. Ed had more gurus than I had boyfriends in that period!
Indeed. EV4EL is a means for the Tory government to minimise the effects of backbench Tory rebellions and to reduce the power of MPs elected by English voters.
Only if you assume that the next parliament is similar in composition to this one. In an election where Labour put up a more competent leader, it would more likely be a hung parliament at the UK level, and a slim Conservative majority at the English one.
To be honest, I feel like this wailing and gnashing of teeth at the obvious fair solution to the West Lothian Question is simply left-wing hypocrisy. They had absolutely not qualms with giving devolution to the Scots and Welsh in a way that moved governance leftwards, so they have no leg to stand on to complain now that devolution to the English hurts them. It seems particularly ridiculous when you got people like Clegg popping up to argue for a weirdly complex system involving the English committee being based on share of the vote, and thus arbitrarily excluding some English MPs.
I accept that the Barnett ramifications are an extra issue to be resolved and thus a legitimate complaint, but again there is a simple solution here. Simply determine a level of UK-spending and a level of devolved spending for each nation. If the English committee want to put spending up and down on their own education or healthcare, it does not affect UK-wide transfers. If people feel the UK-wide transfers system is unfair, then it can be changed by the whole UK parliament.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
How does a constitutional convention resulting in an English parliament with an entrenched right wing majority save Labour's arse? That looks tricky to me. But what it may do is resolve the tensions in the current UK constitutional settlement. Obviously, it will need all sides to go into it with a level of goodwill, but if the Tories, labour and the LDs are serious about saving the UK then surely they all have an interest in that being the case.
Did not Labour enjoy an English majority from 1997 until 2005, and until 2010 could have governed with the LDs against the Cons?
I think what a lot of people on here are struggling with is that my principle interest here is the maintenance of the UK, not the preservation of the Labour party. I am deeply proud of the former, I have very little affection for the latter. I want to remain a citizen of the UK and for my kids and grandchildren to enjoy the same. The fate of the Labour party is far less important to me.
I don't think that people are "struggling" with your "principle interest" here at all.
I flatly don't believe that it is the one you claim ... and other Comments indicate that I'm not the only one who believes you're full of it.
@JohnO - I don't have a fully scoped out plan. But clearly the Tories and UKIP between them should be able to form a very powerful voting block. What you cannot have, though, is anything where a solution is seen to be imposed on a constituent part of the UK against its will. Again, though, if all the main parties are serious about maintaining the UK that should not be a problem. The SNP can argue against whatever comes out if it wants, but the SNP does not speak for Scotland.
IIRC in his first speech, EdM dumped New Labour with abandon. Then he did the whole Blank Piece of Paper thing - which had loads and loads of input and went precisely nowhere.
How any leader can spend 5yrs conducting a policy review that ends up being described as Vote Labour and Win A Microwave by one of his own team speaks volumes.
Soundbites and no strategy. And often the soundbites were the most appalling jargon.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
How does a constitutional convention resulting in an English parliament with an entrenched right wing majority save Labour's arse? That looks tricky to me. But what it may do is resolve the tensions in the current UK constitutional settlement. Obviously, it will need all sides to go into it with a level of goodwill, but if the Tories, labour and the LDs are serious about saving the UK then surely they all have an interest in that being the case.
Did not Labour enjoy an English majority from 1997 until 2005, and until 2010 could have governed with the LDs against the Cons?
I think what a lot of people on here are struggling with is that my principle interest here is the maintenance of the UK, not the preservation of the Labour party. I am deeply proud of the former, I have very little affection for the latter. I want to remain a citizen of the UK and for my kids and grandchildren to enjoy the same. The fate of the Labour party is far less important to me.
I don't think that people are "struggling" with your "principle interest" here at all.
I flatly don't believe that it is the one you claim ... and other Comments indicate that I'm not the only one who believes you're full of it.
The LibDems are gearing up for Bournemouth, I note that there's going to be a motion opposing Trident renewal. What also caught my eye was the following quote - the mind boggles given the LibDems past scandals:
"Finally, the One Member One Vote constitutional amendments come back in their revised form after the Federal Executive got its backside well and truly spanked last year."
Opposing Trident? Farron re-aligns the Lib Dems with the new Corbyn era of Labour?
Aren't LD conferences much more open to grass roots proposals for debate and voting than either Labour or Conservative? I suspect non-renewal of Trident will be popular, but may not get past the Conference vote.
Indeed one other motion is for the Leader to have a veto on policies for the manifesto, at present conference controls this.
@JEO - The Tories have a majority. They can impose whatever they want. However, they have already withdrawn their first, botched attempt. Clearly, it is not as simple as you believe it to be.
The LibDems are gearing up for Bournemouth, I note that there's going to be a motion opposing Trident renewal. What also caught my eye was the following quote - the mind boggles given the LibDems past scandals:
"Finally, the One Member One Vote constitutional amendments come back in their revised form after the Federal Executive got its backside well and truly spanked last year."
Opposing Trident? Farron re-aligns the Lib Dems with the new Corbyn era of Labour?
Aren't LD conferences much more open to grass roots proposals for debate and voting than either Labour or Conservative? I suspect non-renewal of Trident will be popular, but may not get past the Conference vote.
Indeed one other motion is for the Leader to have a veto on policies for the manifesto, at present conference controls this.
My thanks to those who have offered suggestions as to how to get printable maps for the City.
Mr. Charles, a few years ago I used to my love of history the City to put together self-guided walks. They were well received and I even made a little money. Anyway, the cd on which my documents were stored has since been lost and the computer on which they were produced went the way of all flesh a long time ago. I have now been asked to produce a walk for my son to do with his girlfriend. To produce such a walk means the ability to produce a map that will show all the little courts and alleyways in the City. Without that the walk with either need a guide or be so short of interesting detail that one might as well goto a tour company.
I am sure you will already considered them, but can I suggest the walk from Temple Tube via Temple Place, up Middle Temple Lane and through the court (takes you past both the Great Hall and Temple Church) and out onto Fleet Street (near Ye Olde Cock Tavern). You can then swing past the Dragon and head up to Dr. Johnson's House (stopping at St. Dunstan's if you are so minded), and from there up Ludgate Hill to St. Paul's, through the back streets to end up at Austinfriars?
I suggest a walk around the City should begin at the site of Temple Bar, head eastwards, then stop at every City pub which is more than 100 years old, for an alcoholic drink.
The walk will soon become interestingly circuitous, and a lot more fun than following a map.
You talking about Fleet Street (the original site of Temple Bar - where the Dragon is by Child's offices) or Paternoster Square where it's been relocated? More nice pubs with the former...you might not even make it to Ludgate Circus
Funny you should say that. I once was hosting some American colleagues and suggested a walking tour of the city. We started at Temple Tube station and up through the Temple itself (with a stop at the church, of course) and a first drink at the the Cheshire Cheese. That really put the seal on the day - we made it, stopping for refreshment and easement along the way, as far at the Mitre but not into the city proper. When I spoke to one of the participants months after the only thing he could remember was, "The Goddam pub where they still have sawdust on the floor" and Dr. Johnson's house.
The thing about the City is that not only are there still lots of very fine an old pubs (though most that my father took me to have long gone) but even in doing a pub crawl there is some interesting history every few yards. When first walking with my wife to get from Smithfield to Old Bailey took the best part of a day. Just the two hundred square yards around Smithfield can take several hours to explore fully.
Just realised that I ran away just in time to finally be called a TURNIP this morning.
The more vociferous Nats need to realise that there are lots of us who have Scottish roots, love Scotland and the Scottish people - yet hate with a passion the idea that some with to break up our country. Hating the SNP and all they stand for is not hating Scotland, Far from it.
The UK loyalists who regularly reel out this old (t)rope need to realise that neither their 'passionate hatred' nor their 'love' matters much. In fact passionately hating a democratically elected party seems plain weird.
@foxinsoxuk I think that a large proportion of the shadow cabinet thought Ed Miliband's ideas were crap. Look at how Ed Balls has run out of the blocks to criticise Ed's economic policy. Corbyn's issue will be to try and keep Labour united. Given his own voting record Labour could be well set to become an echo-chamber of constant arguing. Nevertheless, as you say all sides of Labour may actually come up some ideas, which could serve the party well in the long-term (when they elect a credible leader).
@SeanT I don't think Ed was that left wing. In office, I also doubt he'd be seriously left-wing - I can't see Ed Balls be willingly to implement some of Ed's economic policies, nor can I see Chris Leslie doing so, or if he was Shadow Chancellor - Chuka Umunna. Where Ed would have been a bit left-wing is social policy. What's also odd about Ed, is that he simultaneously appeared to have a supreme, unshakeable confidence in his own ability - and yet also had a niggling self-doubt too. An a walking contradiction.
@TCPoliticalBetting Very good point. I think Brown was to the left of Tony Blair - Ed Miliband is probably more left-wing than Gordon Brown. In many ways that feud destroyed New Labour, and all the political will invested in it.
Speaking of gurus, EdM had Maurice Glasman - a man who came up with Blue Labour that talked some really sound stuff for Aspirational White Van voters. EdM even gave him a peerage for it.
Then Mr Glasman said that immigration was an issue and was dumped within hours never to be mentioned again.
It was IMO the biggest mistake EdM made at a policy level. I read all the various Blue/Purple/Black Labour proposals and Glasman's blue-collar one was the most coherent defence against Kippers. Back then of course, Labour though Kippers were Tories on holiday.
IIRC in his first speech, EdM dumped New Labour with abandon. Then he did the whole Blank Piece of Paper thing - which had loads and loads of input and went precisely nowhere.
How any leader can spend 5yrs conducting a policy review that ends up being described as Vote Labour and Win A Microwave by one of his own team speaks volumes.
Soundbites and no strategy. And often the soundbites were the most appalling jargon.
Ed Miliband was nowhere near New Labour. In fact I think half the problem was that Ed Miliband had no one idea what the hell he actually was.
LOL I forgot about the 'blank sheet of paper'. Sometimes I really wonder why on earth he stood as a leadership candidate in 2010. It feels like he genuinely wanted to move the party to left (probably where Kinnock was at in 1987-92) but then got scared about the implications and so set-up a policy review in order to try and fudge some ideas together. Ed had more gurus than I had boyfriends in that period!
My experience is that a lot of pubs in the City are closed at the weekend as there are not many punters around. That said, a good pub crawl for a Saturday or Sunday is to walk down the Thames path from Canary Wharf to Tower Bridge - there must be a dozen Dickensian riverside establishments to pop into on the way.
The LibDems are gearing up for Bournemouth, I note that there's going to be a motion opposing Trident renewal. What also caught my eye was the following quote - the mind boggles given the LibDems past scandals:
"Finally, the One Member One Vote constitutional amendments come back in their revised form after the Federal Executive got its backside well and truly spanked last year."
Opposing Trident? Farron re-aligns the Lib Dems with the new Corbyn era of Labour?
Aren't LD conferences much more open to grass roots proposals for debate and voting than either Labour or Conservative? I suspect non-renewal of Trident will be popular, but may not get past the Conference vote.
Indeed one other motion is for the Leader to have a veto on policies for the manifesto, at present conference controls this.
Haven' the LDs always been opposed to Trident?
The last manifesto supported renewal, but with only three subs.
I think that it is an obselete system, but we should keep nuclear capability in other forms. The last Labour government decommissioned our other nuclear weapons in '98, leaving Trident as our only one, and as we have only one sub at sea all our eggs are in one basket.
As virtually any English bill on devolved matters will have budgetary implications for Scotland, then surely Scottish MPs should be able to vote on it. The ludicrous thing about this debate is that David Cameron is sitting with a working majority, its not the SNP's fault that he can't control his own party, which became clear on the fox hunting vote.
There are many good arguments against the government's proposals, but this is in fact the worst. No Bill which imposes any charge on the public revenues, whether out of the Consolidated Fund or moneys paid out of Parliament, can pass the House of Commons without a money resolution. The government's proposals do not apply to money resolutions, on which Scottish MPs will retain a say, and potentially the decisive say.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
As virtually any English bill on devolved matters will have budgetary implications for Scotland, then surely Scottish MPs should be able to vote on it. The ludicrous thing about this debate is that David Cameron is sitting with a working majority, its not the SNP's fault that he can't control his own party, which became clear on the fox hunting vote.
How does fox hunting have budgetary implications for Scotland? It doesn't. You're talking pish. EV4EL.
I didn't say that it did, I was merely pointing out that the Foxhunting bill debacle highlighted how weak David Cameron is.
In terms of talking pish, in the run up to GE2015 many of you guys were filling the pish barrels to overflowing on a daily basis, with the constant hare-brained theories about how the SNP were not going to virtually sweep the board in Scotland.
@JEO - The Tories have a majority. They can impose whatever they want. However, they have already withdrawn their first, botched attempt. Clearly, it is not as simple as you believe it to be.
No, it is really very simple. The difficulty comes when someone wants to put together a measure that pretends to resolve the issue without actually doing so.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
Moreover, if the Scots are only prepared to live in a Union where they get to vote on English affairs, but, at the same time, the English must have no say at all in Scots affairs, then the Union is finished. And it really doesn't matter what this ludicrous Constitutional-Convention-To-Save-Labour's-Arse conjures up.
EV4EL, and do it soon. Then the Scots can decide to stick or twist, as is their choice.
As virtually any English bill on devolved matters will have budgetary implications for Scotland, then surely Scottish MPs should be able to vote on it. The ludicrous thing about this debate is that David Cameron is sitting with a working majority, its not the SNP's fault that he can't control his own party, which became clear on the fox hunting vote.
That's just a canard. It's fine for them to vote on the overall budget as that is clearly a UK wide issue. When it comes to the details of how that money is spent the SNP is just being silly.
@foxinsoxuk I think that a large proportion of the shadow cabinet thought Ed Miliband's ideas were crap. Look at how Ed Balls has run out of the blocks to criticise Ed's economic policy. Corbyn's issue will be to try and keep Labour united. Given his own voting record Labour could be well set to become an echo-chamber of constant arguing. Nevertheless, as you say all sides of Labour may actually come up some ideas, which could serve the party well in the long-term (when they elect a credible leader).
@SeanT I don't think Ed was that left wing. In office, I also doubt he'd be seriously left-wing - I can't see Ed Balls be willingly to implement some of Ed's economic policies, nor can I see Chris Leslie doing so, or if he was Shadow Chancellor - Chuka Umunna. Where Ed would have been a bit left-wing is social policy. What's also odd about Ed, is that he simultaneously appeared to have a supreme, unshakeable confidence in his own ability - and yet also had a niggling self-doubt too. An a walking contradiction.
@TCPoliticalBetting Very good point. I think Brown was to the left of Tony Blair - Ed Miliband is probably more left-wing than Gordon Brown. In many ways that feud destroyed New Labour, and all the political will invested in it.
Ed was very left wing. More so than he ever admitted. Reading his Telegraph interview yesterday, it is clear that Balls saw this. It's a shame for Labour that Balls was so loyal really. It is to be hoped that a big lesson was learned by letting EdM run the full five years. But I doubt it. Instead, it's pretty clear that Labour is only ever going to become a serious party of government once the union link ends.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
It removes the manifest unfairness that is being used by the SNP to drive a wedge between the English and the Scots.
Then, when emotions are cooler, you can take a look at the system as a whole
All a Tory-imposed EV4EL does is provide the SNP with further grievance material and invite a change to the procedure once the Tories lose their majority, as they will at some stage - perhaps even as early as 2020. Then you will have another system until the Tories win again. And so on. Grayling has set a precedent that such changes do not even have to be subject to the full scrutiny provided for by an act of Parliament.
What it has also done is provide succour to the SNP by providing them with a grievance. A consensual, inclusive approach endorsed in a referendum would not run this risk. And, if the SNP declined to take part, would put the emphasis on them to explain why they were sitting it out.
Oh, they'd participate. And then denounce the conclusions.
But I'm with @SeanT. You are being thoroughly boring and self-righteous.
Speaking of gurus, EdM had Maurice Glasman - a man who came up with Blue Labour that talked some really sound stuff for Aspirational White Van voters. EdM even gave him a peerage for it.
Then Mr Glasman said that immigration was an issue and was dumped within hours never to be mentioned again.
It was IMO the biggest mistake EdM made at a policy level. I read all the various Blue/Purple/Black Labour proposals and Glasman's blue-collar one was the most coherent defence against Kippers. Back then of course, Labour though Kippers were Tories on holiday.
IIRC in his first speech, EdM dumped New Labour with abandon. Then he did the whole Blank Piece of Paper thing - which had loads and loads of input and went precisely nowhere.
How any leader can spend 5yrs conducting a policy review that ends up being described as Vote Labour and Win A Microwave by one of his own team speaks volumes.
Soundbites and no strategy. And often the soundbites were the most appalling jargon.
Ed Miliband was nowhere near New Labour. In fact I think half the problem was that Ed Miliband had no one idea what the hell he actually was.
LOL I forgot about the 'blank sheet of paper'. Sometimes I really wonder why on earth he stood as a leadership candidate in 2010. It feels like he genuinely wanted to move the party to left (probably where Kinnock was at in 1987-92) but then got scared about the implications and so set-up a policy review in order to try and fudge some ideas together. Ed had more gurus than I had boyfriends in that period!
I remember Blue Labour - I thought it was something worth pursuing. I think what many in Labour need to understand is that talking about immigration isn't saying that immigration in itself is bad, or that immigrants are bad, or that immigration should never happen ever again. All it's saying is that immigration needs to be controlled, which is logical really. My grandad votes Tory and he was immigrant (now a British citizen though - he came here in 1953) and even he's concerned about immigration.
That said, I also think voters not being able to take Ed seriously also meant that even if he came up with good ideas he wouldn't have got a hearing. He tried to talk tough on welfare, on immigration - but I think he did not come across as authentic to voters.
I also remember Purple Labour (though I can't remember what it was actually about) and 'predistribution' which has got to be one of the randomest political ideas in history.
The LibDems are gearing up for Bournemouth, I note that there's going to be a motion opposing Trident renewal. What also caught my eye was the following quote - the mind boggles given the LibDems past scandals:
"Finally, the One Member One Vote constitutional amendments come back in their revised form after the Federal Executive got its backside well and truly spanked last year."
Opposing Trident? Farron re-aligns the Lib Dems with the new Corbyn era of Labour?
Aren't LD conferences much more open to grass roots proposals for debate and voting than either Labour or Conservative? I suspect non-renewal of Trident will be popular, but may not get past the Conference vote.
Indeed one other motion is for the Leader to have a veto on policies for the manifesto, at present conference controls this.
Haven' the LDs always been opposed to Trident?
The last manifesto supported renewal, but with only three subs.
I think that it is an obselete system, but we should keep nuclear capability in other forms. The last Labour government decommissioned our other nuclear weapons in '98, leaving Trident as our only one, and as we have only one sub at sea all our eggs are in one basket.
"... we should keep nuclear capability in other forms...."
Ok, Doc, which? Which forms of nuclear capability should we retain (or rather build from scratch) and why?
@JEO - The Tories have a majority. They can impose whatever they want. However, they have already withdrawn their first, botched attempt. Clearly, it is not as simple as you believe it to be.
No, it is really very simple. The difficulty comes when someone wants to put together a measure that pretends to resolve the issue without actually doing so.
So why are the Tories doing that? There must be reasons. I suspect that one is that it is actually not possible to resolve EV4EL in the absence of consensus. The Tories can seek to impose a solution, but the reality is that it would mean backbench Tory MPs voting to make themselves less powerful.
I think Purple was Tristram's version of it - I can't remember what it said either. I recall it being a bit academic which given his previous life is understandable.
Speaking of gurus, EdM had Maurice Glasman - a man who came up with Blue Labour that talked some really sound stuff for Aspirational White Van voters. EdM even gave him a peerage for it.
Then Mr Glasman said that immigration was an issue and was dumped within hours never to be mentioned again.
IIRC in his first speech, EdM dumped New Labour with abandon. Then he did the whole Blank Piece of Paper thing - which had loads and loads of input and went precisely nowhere.
How any leader can spend 5yrs conducting a policy review that ends up being described as Vote Labour and Win A Microwave by one of his own team speaks volumes.
Soundbites and no strategy. And often the soundbites were the most appalling jargon.
Ed Miliband was nowhere near New Labour. In fact I think half the problem was that Ed Miliband had no one idea what the hell he actually was.
LOL I forgot about the 'blank sheet of paper'. Sometimes I really wonder why on earth he stood as a leadership candidate in 2010. It feels like he genuinely wanted to move the party to left (probably where Kinnock was at in 1987-92) but then got scared about the implications and so set-up a policy review in order to try and fudge some ideas together. Ed had more gurus than I had boyfriends in that period!
I remember Blue Labour - I thought it was something worth pursuing. I think what many in Labour need to understand is that talking about immigration isn't saying that immigration in itself is bad, or that immigrants are bad, or that immigration should never happen ever again. All it's saying is that immigration needs to be controlled, which is logical really. My grandad votes Tory and he was immigrant (now a British citizen though - he came here in 1953) and even he's concerned about immigration.
That said, I also think voters not being able to take Ed seriously also meant that even if he came up with good ideas he wouldn't have got a hearing. He tried to talk tough on welfare, on immigration - but I think he did not come across as authentic to voters.
I also remember Purple Labour (though I can't remember what it was actually about) and 'predistribution' which has got to be one of the randomest political ideas in history.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
It removes the manifest unfairness that is being used by the SNP to drive a wedge between the English and the Scots.
Then, when emotions are cooler, you can take a look at the system as a whole
All a Tory-imposed EV4EL does is provide the SNP with further grievance material and invite a change to the procedure once the Tories lose their majority, as they will at some stage - perhaps even as early as 2020. Then you will have another system until the Tories win again. And so on. Grayling has set a precedent that such changes do not even have to be subject to the full scrutiny provided for by an act of Parliament.
What it has also done is provide succour to the SNP by providing them with a grievance. A consensual, inclusive approach endorsed in a referendum would not run this risk. And, if the SNP declined to take part, would put the emphasis on them to explain why they were sitting it out.
Oh, they'd participate. And then denounce the conclusions.
But I'm with @SeanT. You are being thoroughly boring and self-righteous.
Apologies Charles, I thought you were a grown-up. Never mind. You live and learn.
No, what it means is that you do not understand the argument. Or do not like it, but do not have the means to put an alternative view.
Oh, I precisely understand the argument.
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
????
Constitutional convention vs. bold offer vs. incremental reform.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
In what way does that help to preserve the Union? That is what my argument is about.
I've skimmed this thread so apologies if I've missed it, but have you said who would comprise a putative constitutional convention? It is rather important, wouldn't you agree?
All parties that in at least one constituent part of the UK received over 5% of the vote at the last general election would be invited to send representatives and to take part.
Would decisions have to be unanimous? Would any 'majority' report be immediately sent to referendum?
I'd be happy with that, as an alternative to EV4EL. Probably much harder to achieve, constitutionally, however?
I don't see why. It's been done before. Probably the Scots should get nearer 30 seats than twenty in "fairness" terms. You could also reduce the number of Welsh and Northern Irish MPs too as both also have devolved assemblies. I can't really understand why Cameron in particular is so opposed. Anyway, the Government has a majority: it should use it (another beneficial spin-off is that it would reduce the number of MPs by around 50 and that's before the Boundary Commission re-starts its work!)
Because the mischevious would sell it as the Tories being "anti-Scotland", "anti-Wales" etc
@foxinsoxuk I think that a large proportion of the shadow cabinet thought Ed Miliband's ideas were crap. Look at how Ed Balls has run out of the blocks to criticise Ed's economic policy. Corbyn's issue will be to try and keep Labour united. Given his own voting record Labour could be well set to become an echo-chamber of constant arguing. Nevertheless, as you say all sides of Labour may actually come up some ideas, which could serve the party well in the long-term (when they elect a credible leader).
@SeanT I don't think Ed was that left wing. In office, I also doubt he'd be seriously left-wing - I can't see Ed Balls be willingly to implement some of Ed's economic policies, nor can I see Chris Leslie doing so, or if he was Shadow Chancellor - Chuka Umunna. Where Ed would have been a bit left-wing is social policy. What's also odd about Ed, is that he simultaneously appeared to have a supreme, unshakeable confidence in his own ability - and yet also had a niggling self-doubt too. An a walking contradiction.
@TCPoliticalBetting Very good point. I think Brown was to the left of Tony Blair - Ed Miliband is probably more left-wing than Gordon Brown. In many ways that feud destroyed New Labour, and all the political will invested in it.
Ed was very left wing. More so than he ever admitted. Reading his Telegraph interview yesterday, it is clear that Balls saw this. It's a shame for Labour that Balls was so loyal really. It is to be hoped that a big lesson was learned by letting EdM run the full five years. But I doubt it. Instead, it's pretty clear that Labour is only ever going to become a serious party of government once the union link ends.
It feels like, if that's true then Ed Balls only saw this while being EdM's shadow chancellor - which is odd, given that they worked together under Gordon Brown for years.
I'm actually someone who doesn't outright reject the purpose of unions in Britain, but I actually HATE UNITE with a passion, and have a strong, active dislike of Len McCluskey. IMHO unions need serious reform. For too long, they've become a platform for jumped up wannabes like Len McCluskey who just want to make Labour some Footesque political party as opposed to actually caring about their members.
My experience is that a lot of pubs in the City are closed at the weekend as there are not many punters around. That said, a good pub crawl for a Saturday or Sunday is to walk down the Thames path from Canary Wharf to Tower Bridge - there must be a dozen Dickensian riverside establishments to pop into on the way.
Your experience is maybe a little dated. The City-at-the-weekend has been transformed by the Wobbly Bridge, Heron Tower, the Whole Shoreditch-Spitalfields thing, the new shopping malls, Paternoster. You can still find quiet corners where it is totally dead on Saturday and Sunday, as was once true of the entire Square Mile, but other parts are now throbbing at the weekend.
Coincidentally I got a cab from Liverpool Street to Camden at 10pm last night, returning from Portugal via Stansted.
On a Saturday night the traffic around Liv Street was chocka. Didn't move for five minutes. Millions of drinkers and partygoers everywhere.
That area would have been desolate 20 years ago, on a weekend. Amazing.
Yep, sounds like things have moved on. The City used to be stone cold dead at the weekend. It was always good to wander around when there was no-one there. You could feel the past closing in on you, just from the street lay-out and names. Walking inside history.
In from the garden to find Mrs Stodge having decamped to the shops. Ah well...
On LD defence policy, I remember Tim being asked this at the London Hustings and he said he was opposed to the renewal of Trident as currently planned and any increased capacity in the British nuclear deterrent.
On a tangent, we were dining with friends last night at a cheap Chinese buffet in Hammersmith and I got into a conversation on politics (which I avoid generally) and one of my friends opined Vladimir Putin was "mad". When I countered I saw very little evidence of that, he said "oh, the Russkies are testing our defences and getting ready for War just like they used to". Once again I opined they had always done that and it was in no one's interests, least of all the oligarchs who bankrolled Putin, to see their holiday homes not three miles from where we were sitting reduced to radioactive ash. By then, I realised everyone else at the table had tuned in...
So then, we are back to feasting on the entrails of Labour. Ho hum...as I said on Friday, there are only two ways for parties of opposition to win power - either move to the electorate (Churchill, Wilson, Blair, Cameron) or hope the electorate moves to you (Attlee, Heath (?), Thatcher).
Corbyn, if elected leader, is, I suspect, going to be far less ideological and far more pragmatic than many on here expect. After all, we've all done and said things in our youth and middle age we regret later but, having listened to him on Marr, I got no sense of a socialist ideologue - indeed, he was the very model of urbane reason, more university academic than rabble-rouser. Politically, he's no Blair but I'm sure he recognises he needs to reassure suburban England (and especially the pensioners) he's a reasonable man. Most people have never heard of him and most people have never lived in Islington.
The second point is the bigger the tent the more likely it is to collapse - as the Conservatives seek to become more "inclusive" by deciding that not only will they provide the Government but will provide the Opposition as well, the more likely it is they will alienate some of their coalition and bring the whole edifice crashing down.
To be fair, the Mail's front page yesterday was pretty hostile to Cameron and though it's summer and it won't matter for many other than holidaymakers caught up in it, the endless meetings of COBRA every time there's a cat stuck up a tree in Leighton Buzzard foster the impression of a Government pretending to be doing things while not having much of a clue what to do.
Why am I mentioning it? Because it is the last. They aren't printing any more hardbacks (the paperback comes out next month and the publishers want to move buyers on to that)
So this is the last chance to buy a hardback first edition (though it will be the eighth or ninth print run, so not a pure first edition). Just FYI. Could be worth, ooh, dozens of pounds in a few decades.
Buy it for your grandkids!
Given the American run is being pulped, is my version worth more or less?
@foxinsoxuk I think that a large proportion of the shadow cabinet thought Ed Miliband's ideas were crap. Look at how Ed Balls has run out of the blocks to criticise Ed's economic policy. Corbyn's issue will be to try and keep Labour united. Given his own voting record Labour could be well set to become an echo-chamber of constant arguing. Nevertheless, as you say all sides of Labour may actually come up some ideas, which could serve the party well in the long-term (when they elect a credible leader).
@SeanT I don't think Ed was that left wing. In office, I also doubt he'd be seriously left-wing - I can't see Ed Balls be willingly to implement some of Ed's economic policies, nor can I see Chris Leslie doing so, or if he was Shadow Chancellor - Chuka Umunna. Where Ed would have been a bit left-wing is social policy. What's also odd about Ed, is that he simultaneously appeared to have a supreme, unshakeable confidence in his own ability - and yet also had a niggling self-doubt too. An a walking contradiction.
@TCPoliticalBetting Very good point. I think Brown was to the left of Tony Blair - Ed Miliband is probably more left-wing than Gordon Brown. In many ways that feud destroyed New Labour, and all the political will invested in it.
Ed was very left wing. More so than he ever admitted. Reading his Telegraph interview yesterday, it is clear that Balls saw this. It's a shame for Labour that Balls was so loyal really. It is to be hoped that a big lesson was learned by letting EdM run the full five years. But I doubt it. Instead, it's pretty clear that Labour is only ever going to become a serious party of government once the union link ends.
It feels like, if that's true then Ed Balls only saw this while being EdM's shadow chancellor - which is odd, given that they worked together under Gordon Brown for years.
I'm actually someone who doesn't outright reject the purpose of unions in Britain, but I actually HATE UNITE with a passion, and have a strong, active dislike of Len McCluskey. IMHO unions need serious reform. For too long, they've become a platform for jumped up wannabes like Len McCluskey who just want to make Labour some Footesque political party as opposed to actually caring about their members.
I am all for unions. I am totally opposed to Labour's union link though. It is thoroughly destructive.
Comments
Mr. Charles, a few years ago I used to my love of history the City to put together self-guided walks. They were well received and I even made a little money. Anyway, the cd on which my documents were stored has since been lost and the computer on which they were produced went the way of all flesh a long time ago. I have now been asked to produce a walk for my son to do with his girlfriend. To produce such a walk means the ability to produce a map that will show all the little courts and alleyways in the City. Without that the walk with either need a guide or be so short of interesting detail that one might as well goto a tour company.
I think it's like a wind-chill factor; it will feel a lot longer than 7 years.
At the moment SNP and Scottish Tory supporters are indeed riding the crest of their respective waves. However, a number of Tories I know were extremely pissed off with David Cameron's no 2nd Indyref on my watch speech, which has pretty much put paid to their chances of a good showing in Holyrood 2016.
Also worth noting that Scottish Labour's dwindling band of supporters are as unimpressed with the omnishambles leadership elections as the next man. Labour's continued woes will probably see their polling numbers fall ever closer to 15%. Murray's failure to vote against the welfare bill isn't going down well - to then give an interview stating that he'd voted against it by abstaining was a classic. Harriet Harman sitting sipping a cool glass of white wine on the H of C balcony as the welfare vote was taking place and Lord Sewel's antics will not help SLAB's case.
When anyone says "Mr Charles" I can only ever read in Leonardo DiCaprio's accent from Inception...
It's the same argument as happened in Ireland. And Belgium. And Germany. And Switzerland. In fact pretty much everywhere I looked at while studying constitutional government.
As for Kinnock, I don't know why he stayed on after 1987. Really, he should have stepped down. Labour could have won 1992 with an electable candidate.
I agree with Kieran btw: and I don't understand how so many Corbyn supporters aren't seeing this logic. That said, you have to question whether Burnham and Cooper would really push Labour that much forward from where they are now.
As I said a while ago: there was a time for a bold offer or a constitutional convention, but that was before the referendum. Now is the time for incremental reform.
My route hits part of Fleet Street, Ludgate Circus and Ludgate Hill (which at least has a nice aspect of St. Paul's)
Zoom in. Select 'Ordnance Survey'. Detailed enough?
(I'm a buff with the City and its geography/history/wards etc...)
Unfortunately once the game of anti-westminster scottish nationalism was played by Labour and the Lib Dems aligning with the SNP, they fed the nationalist beast and it is only going to end IMHO in independence. One main party opposed the Scottish Assembly and that party was effectively ganged up on by the scots nationalists and psuedo nationalists in Labour and the Lib Dems.
Yeah, maybe they could have elected Jeremy Corbyn.
Then, when emotions are cooler, you can take a look at the system as a whole
If, for example, you are rock climbing a cliff face and come to a smooth area of rock with no cracks, finger holds or foot holds, you do need to take a different approach which may involve some back tracking. But simply jumping off the cliff is not a helpful kind of different.
What it has also done is provide succour to the SNP by providing them with a grievance. A consensual, inclusive approach endorsed in a referendum would not run this risk. And, if the SNP declined to take part, would put the emphasis on them to explain why they were sitting it out.
If the Probability of Implementation is close to zero, it doesn't matter how great the proposals of the convention are.
Well, there will be increased border costs as migrant foxes move north to avoid the dangerous Tories and their dogs.
Clearly.
"Finally, the One Member One Vote constitutional amendments come back in their revised form after the Federal Executive got its backside well and truly spanked last year."
http://www.libdemvoice.org/bournemouth-conference-agenda-5-days-15-policy-motions-8-keynote-speeches-and-some-very-important-consultation-sessions-47016.html#utm_source=tweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter
I think Kinnock was right to stay on in 87, he had made a lot of progress electorally, from a very difficult starting position. I think this fetish for immediate resignation after a lost election is a poor development. It tends to lead to a fairly rash rush to appoint without a proper electoral autopsy.
If not, the Tories would clearly be outvoted and by a large margin in the convention whereas they have just secured an overall majority in the Commons.
I don't like EVEL, still less an English Parliament. As I've argued here before (and there's strong support on the Tory backbenches for this option), the least bad route is to further reduce Scottish representation at Westminster (down to say 20 MPs?) but retain full voting rights. It worked well enough for 60 years when Northern Ireland had its own Parliament: it's a typical "British" pragmatic solution to constitutional messiness.
@TCPoliticalBetting I can see Labour slowly moving away from Union funding in time.
Do you think it is right that the convention is dominated by the English? (The SNP's argument) But why should England's interests be sublimated to the wishes of the SNP (the English argument).
How any leader can spend 5yrs conducting a policy review that ends up being described as Vote Labour and Win A Microwave by one of his own team speaks volumes.
Soundbites and no strategy. And often the soundbites were the most appalling jargon.
The more vociferous Nats need to realise that there are lots of us who have Scottish roots, love Scotland and the Scottish people - yet hate with a passion the idea that some with to break up our country. Hating the SNP and all they stand for is not hating Scotland, Far from it.
Kendall has some interesting, but underdeveloped, policies; and Corbyn was never part of New Labour so much better positioned to revise it.
Corbyn is a debator by nature and any party led by him will be a ferment of ideas.
Corbyn's debate may consist of arguing whether 80% or 90% should be the top rate of tax.
The hunting vote was designed purely to smoke out the SNP on something they had themselves said was a perfect example of an issue on which they would abstain. Mission Accomplished by the Tories there.
To be honest, I feel like this wailing and gnashing of teeth at the obvious fair solution to the West Lothian Question is simply left-wing hypocrisy. They had absolutely not qualms with giving devolution to the Scots and Welsh in a way that moved governance leftwards, so they have no leg to stand on to complain now that devolution to the English hurts them. It seems particularly ridiculous when you got people like Clegg popping up to argue for a weirdly complex system involving the English committee being based on share of the vote, and thus arbitrarily excluding some English MPs.
I accept that the Barnett ramifications are an extra issue to be resolved and thus a legitimate complaint, but again there is a simple solution here. Simply determine a level of UK-spending and a level of devolved spending for each nation. If the English committee want to put spending up and down on their own education or healthcare, it does not affect UK-wide transfers. If people feel the UK-wide transfers system is unfair, then it can be changed by the whole UK parliament.
I flatly don't believe that it is the one you claim ... and other Comments indicate that I'm not the only one who believes you're full of it.
"Am I tough enough? HELL, YES, I'm tough enough!"
Indeed one other motion is for the Leader to have a veto on policies for the manifesto, at present conference controls this.
The thing about the City is that not only are there still lots of very fine an old pubs (though most that my father took me to have long gone) but even in doing a pub crawl there is some interesting history every few yards. When first walking with my wife to get from Smithfield to Old Bailey took the best part of a day. Just the two hundred square yards around Smithfield can take several hours to explore fully.
@SeanT I don't think Ed was that left wing. In office, I also doubt he'd be seriously left-wing - I can't see Ed Balls be willingly to implement some of Ed's economic policies, nor can I see Chris Leslie doing so, or if he was Shadow Chancellor - Chuka Umunna. Where Ed would have been a bit left-wing is social policy. What's also odd about Ed, is that he simultaneously appeared to have a supreme, unshakeable confidence in his own ability - and yet also had a niggling self-doubt too. An a walking contradiction.
@TCPoliticalBetting Very good point. I think Brown was to the left of Tony Blair - Ed Miliband is probably more left-wing than Gordon Brown. In many ways that feud destroyed New Labour, and all the political will invested in it.
Then Mr Glasman said that immigration was an issue and was dumped within hours never to be mentioned again.
It was IMO the biggest mistake EdM made at a policy level. I read all the various Blue/Purple/Black Labour proposals and Glasman's blue-collar one was the most coherent defence against Kippers. Back then of course, Labour though Kippers were Tories on holiday.
Blue Labour http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/something-new-and-something-blue-key-labours-future
I think that it is an obselete system, but we should keep nuclear capability in other forms. The last Labour government decommissioned our other nuclear weapons in '98, leaving Trident as our only one, and as we have only one sub at sea all our eggs are in one basket.
In terms of talking pish, in the run up to GE2015 many of you guys were filling the pish barrels to overflowing on a daily basis, with the constant hare-brained theories about how the SNP were not going to virtually sweep the board in Scotland.
But I'm with @SeanT. You are being thoroughly boring and self-righteous.
That said, I also think voters not being able to take Ed seriously also meant that even if he came up with good ideas he wouldn't have got a hearing. He tried to talk tough on welfare, on immigration - but I think he did not come across as authentic to voters.
I also remember Purple Labour (though I can't remember what it was actually about) and 'predistribution' which has got to be one of the randomest political ideas in history.
Ok, Doc, which? Which forms of nuclear capability should we retain (or rather build from scratch) and why?
I'm actually someone who doesn't outright reject the purpose of unions in Britain, but I actually HATE UNITE with a passion, and have a strong, active dislike of Len McCluskey. IMHO unions need serious reform. For too long, they've become a platform for jumped up wannabes like Len McCluskey who just want to make Labour some Footesque political party as opposed to actually caring about their members.
In from the garden to find Mrs Stodge having decamped to the shops. Ah well...
On LD defence policy, I remember Tim being asked this at the London Hustings and he said he was opposed to the renewal of Trident as currently planned and any increased capacity in the British nuclear deterrent.
On a tangent, we were dining with friends last night at a cheap Chinese buffet in Hammersmith and I got into a conversation on politics (which I avoid generally) and one of my friends opined Vladimir Putin was "mad". When I countered I saw very little evidence of that, he said "oh, the Russkies are testing our defences and getting ready for War just like they used to". Once again I opined they had always done that and it was in no one's interests, least of all the oligarchs who bankrolled Putin, to see their holiday homes not three miles from where we were sitting reduced to radioactive ash. By then, I realised everyone else at the table had tuned in...
So then, we are back to feasting on the entrails of Labour. Ho hum...as I said on Friday, there are only two ways for parties of opposition to win power - either move to the electorate (Churchill, Wilson, Blair, Cameron) or hope the electorate moves to you (Attlee, Heath (?), Thatcher).
Corbyn, if elected leader, is, I suspect, going to be far less ideological and far more pragmatic than many on here expect. After all, we've all done and said things in our youth and middle age we regret later but, having listened to him on Marr, I got no sense of a socialist ideologue - indeed, he was the very model of urbane reason, more university academic than rabble-rouser. Politically, he's no Blair but I'm sure he recognises he needs to reassure suburban England (and especially the pensioners) he's a reasonable man. Most people have never heard of him and most people have never lived in Islington.
The second point is the bigger the tent the more likely it is to collapse - as the Conservatives seek to become more "inclusive" by deciding that not only will they provide the Government but will provide the Opposition as well, the more likely it is they will alienate some of their coalition and bring the whole edifice crashing down.
To be fair, the Mail's front page yesterday was pretty hostile to Cameron and though it's summer and it won't matter for many other than holidaymakers caught up in it, the endless meetings of COBRA every time there's a cat stuck up a tree in Leighton Buzzard foster the impression of a Government pretending to be doing things while not having much of a clue what to do.
*pokes*