He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
He is unfortunate in that he has found himself in the position of having had to agree with everything the government has proposed for the past year ("oh but we would have done it like this" doesn't cut it for political not-interesteds).
When the dust settles he will either be that bloke that held his nerve, maintained his smart haircut, and is ready to lead the country; or the one that didn't have any policies of his own and lined up with the govt at every opportunity.
I'm guessing that voters of the former view will likely be those who might not have voted Lab before, while those of the latter, those who probably have.
Strong(ish) take. We will, however, need to win the Red Wall back to have a chance of Starmer PM and so will need to tempt some of those class trai ... tory switchers up there (who did so because of Brexit/Jez) back into our parlour.
First 'Red Wallies', now 'Class Traitories'? This is pure gold. Phrasal, not electoral, but gold nonetheless.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
He is unfortunate in that he has found himself in the position of having had to agree with everything the government has proposed for the past year ("oh but we would have done it like this" doesn't cut it for political not-interesteds).
When the dust settles he will either be that bloke that held his nerve, maintained his smart haircut, and is ready to lead the country; or the one that didn't have any policies of his own and lined up with the govt at every opportunity.
I'm guessing that voters of the former view will likely be those who might not have voted Lab before, while those of the latter, those who probably have.
Strong(ish) take. We will, however, need to win the Red Wall back to have a chance of Starmer PM and so will need to tempt some of those class trai ... tory switchers up there (who did so because of Brexit/Jez) back into our parlour.
How homogenous is the Red Wall? They have already lost their cherry and have found no babies have been eaten by the Cons. They might even have found that aside from two admittedly huge exogenous events their lives haven't changed that much from 1997-2010 hence what was all the fuss about.
Is Starmer someone to go into the trenches, pint of best in hand (or glass of Picpoul for that matter) and win them back? Because as you said, the Red Wall will need to be won back; I'm not sure it will drift back of its own accord.
I honestly don't know if he has the right stuff for doing it. I don't even have much of a hunch about that at this point. I'm not on the "Starmer too dull to win" train though. I'm deferring judgment till this time next year.
Yes I think that (Starmer is too dull) is wishful thinking. We have Boris who is a clown so anyone else might seem dull. But that could switch to quiet confidence in the flick of a blond mop.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
Let's not pretend you don't have a vested interest here. You want English independence so will poo poo any other suggestion to the contrary.
Federalism requires compromise if the Union is to be preserved. You may not want the Union to be preserved but plenty of people do.
That works with good faith partners. The SNP are not good faith partners. They want an end to the union.
Its like teaming up with someone who says 'I want to ditch you and will do everything I can to ditch you, and whilst we're together i'm going to keep slagging you off', that's not the basis for a lasting relationship.
Aye, poor, old good faith partners BJ and the Tory party being let down by other folk..
I'm talking about a fundamental basis of support for the union continuing. The truth isn't as clear-cut as that true, but the point remains.
For the last 20+ years part of the fundamental basis of of support for the union continuing is HMG accepting and supporting devolution. BJ & co have changed that, and as ye sow so shall ye reap.
A push for independence is not devolution it's separatism. It's the SNP which aren't interested in devolution as the endgame.
As I have said repeatedly (and no doubt tediously), if not for Brexit for which Scotland voted more enthusiastically against than England for, the SNP's main ambition would be aiming for the biggest party in the next Holyrood election, support for indy would be a steady 40-45% and Devolution would be stumbling along in it's incremental 'here's a wee bit more power' way. More sowing and reaping I'm afraid.
Maybe if No Deal but little evidence for that now we have a Brexit deal.
The final Yougov Scottish independence poll before the 2016 EU referendum in March 2016 was Yes 41% No 48% and Undecided 12%.
The latest Yougov Scottish independence poll from March 2021 was Yes 41% No 43% and Undecided 14%.
... unless of course enough of the increase to 14% undecideds fall behind the 41% on referendum day.
Your poll tells us very little. Was your poll conducted by Trafalgar?
If the 12% of Undecideds before the EU referendum in 2016 had got behind the 41% of Yes voters then Yes also would have won too (though in 2014 most Undecideds went No).
So the poll tells us quite clearly there has been effectively no change at all in reality in Scots opinion on independence because of Brexit and confirms Brexit is not a material change in circumstances.
Maybe a No Deal Brexit might have been but we now have a UK and EU trade deal
The 'deal' saves the Union. Hmmm? A bit of rosary clutching there HYUFD.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
I think the problem is the idea of England as a monolith. If you had devolution to English regions then you would be able to see the differences within England between the South-East and the North-West.
There seems quite a strong feeling within parts of England for decisions to be devolved away from London.
If the largest constituent part of the UK is Greater London, then it's much harder for Scottish Nationalists to create a grievance about being bullied by a colonialist England.
Actually, if England is divided into regions, it can always outvote the other home nations easily, and this is going to result in far more grievance amongst the home nations, because it enshrines English dominance based on population in exactly the same way that WM does currently.
But the point is that the divisions within England are greater than those between England and Scotland.
So you wouldn't routinely have England voting one way and Scotland the other. Sometimes Scotland would have support from London, Yorkshire, or wherever.
They tried that with the North East Assembly. Problem is that most regions don't have a defined identity that is big enough.
For instance Sunderland doesn't want to be in the North East as Newcastle will dominate hence the North of Tyne Regional Mayor as every town south of the Tyne would rather nothing than letting Newcastle trump them.
I suspect the North West is the same, Yorkshire would have everywhere worried that Leeds wins over Sheffield / York / Hull, Midlands would worry about Birmingham, South West Bristol....
Mr. 1983, not that many. Yorkshire has a surprisingly similar population and GDP to Scotland (almost identical).
Also, unlike most other parts of England, there's already an intensely strong regional identity.
Carving England into bits remains a stupid idea.
How many then, 10? The same applies. We already have a system that includes the domination of England in UK-wide matters by virtue of population size. What is the point in exchanging or adding to that to add more of the same?
Yes there already is strong regional identity - so much so that we already have braindead seperatist grievance miners for practically every region. Do we want another Scotland on our hands in 10 years?
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
Slice England into bits and it'll be a few years before you have demagogues in London complaining about their taxes being sent elsewhere and leaders in Yorkshire complaining they don't get the same spending per head as London.
We've seen with Scotland what happens when you permanently embed a political division. Do it throughout England it's a recipe for disaster and yet greater division.
It's an act of madness to look at Holyrood and think that needs replicating multiple times across England, slicing England to bits in the process.
Mr. 1983, not that many. Yorkshire has a surprisingly similar population and GDP to Scotland (almost identical).
Also, unlike most other parts of England, there's already an intensely strong regional identity.
Carving England into bits remains a stupid idea.
How many then, 10? The same applies. We already have a system that includes the domination of England in UK-wide matters by virtue of population size. What is the point in exchanging or adding to that to add more of the same?
Yes there already is strong regional identity - so much so that we already have braindead seperatist grievance miners for practically every region. Do we want another Scotland on our hands in 10 years?
The other issue is that Scotland 'as a region' would have special status over the other as, it is its own country (as part of the union). It has it's own legal system.
Do we want a SW/SE/whatever legal system, a taxation system, a health system, and all the other things to bring these regions up to the same level of devolution as Scotland would do.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
Not sure if that's what you intended, but kind of implicit that the 'UK' Parliament would always support England..
Well the 'UK' Parliament would be on a 1 person 1 vote basis so would usually reflect England's wishes.
And so we have the WLQ. On a fundamental head count, England always gets it's way.
Brexit would have been like this:
England - Yes Wales - Yes UK - Yes Scotland - No Northern Ireland - No
Brexit goes through constitutionally. If Wales had also voted against, it would not have passed, despite England.
That's an utter dogs dinner, you could have a situation where a vast majority of people want a policy but blockers in the other home nations have comparatively a vast higher level of influence.
Say on a vote we have:
80/20 England 45/55 Other countries.
I won't do the maths, but on that basis the vote would fail even if maybe 60-70% of overall votes were for it.
In fact, in a campaign, you wouldn't put any resources for 'no' into England, just go for the others, as the vote in England doesn't matter anymore.
Well yeah, that's federalism.
Which works when the numbers of federal states are high enough so not one can dominate. In the UK we would, have 5 states, and one which is 10 times as big as the closest other.
What country works on that basis?
The logical answer is to subdivide England. London has different interests to Cornwall, etc
It would work if the regional devolution was at a similar level to Wales, so that Westminster doesn't become irrelevant. Unfortunately, getting powers back from Scotland to make the whole thing fair is not going to be easy.
English regions would decline the offer of devolution, and they would have no choice but to put it to a referendum. It is less devolution not more that we need. There is far too much politics in Scotland for a population the same as Yorkshire. We need less.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
Mr. 1983, not that many. Yorkshire has a surprisingly similar population and GDP to Scotland (almost identical).
Also, unlike most other parts of England, there's already an intensely strong regional identity.
Carving England into bits remains a stupid idea.
How many then, 10? The same applies. We already have a system that includes the domination of England in UK-wide matters by virtue of population size. What is the point in exchanging or adding to that to add more of the same?
Yes there already is strong regional identity - so much so that we already have braindead seperatist grievance miners for practically every region. Do we want another Scotland on our hands in 10 years?
Regional assemblies are an absurd idea that would make the regions into "another Scotland".
If we don't want a "Scotland" then the solution is to let Scotland go and move on, not to make every region of the UK like Scotland.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
Not sure if that's what you intended, but kind of implicit that the 'UK' Parliament would always support England..
Well the 'UK' Parliament would be on a 1 person 1 vote basis so would usually reflect England's wishes.
And so we have the WLQ. On a fundamental head count, England always gets it's way.
Brexit would have been like this:
England - Yes Wales - Yes UK - Yes Scotland - No Northern Ireland - No
Brexit goes through constitutionally. If Wales had also voted against, it would not have passed, despite England.
That's an utter dogs dinner, you could have a situation where a vast majority of people want a policy but blockers in the other home nations have comparatively a vast higher level of influence.
Say on a vote we have:
80/20 England 45/55 Other countries.
I won't do the maths, but on that basis the vote would fail even if maybe 60-70% of overall votes were for it.
In fact, in a campaign, you wouldn't put any resources for 'no' into England, just go for the others, as the vote in England doesn't matter anymore.
Well yeah, that's federalism.
Which works when the numbers of federal states are high enough so not one can dominate. In the UK we would, have 5 states, and one which is 10 times as big as the closest other.
What country works on that basis?
The logical answer is to subdivide England. London has different interests to Cornwall, etc
It would work if the regional devolution was at a similar level to Wales, so that Westminster doesn't become irrelevant. Unfortunately, getting powers back from Scotland to make the whole thing fair is not going to be easy.
English regions would decline the offer of devolution, and they would have no choice but to put it to a referendum. It is less devolution not more that we need. There is far too much politics in Scotland for a population the same as Yorkshire. We need less.
If Starmer becomes PM Labour would likely give Scotland devomax and impose regional assemblies on England without a vote, Labour has no interest in England as a distinctive country, Starmer will pose with Union flags not St George's flags
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
He is unfortunate in that he has found himself in the position of having had to agree with everything the government has proposed for the past year ("oh but we would have done it like this" doesn't cut it for political not-interesteds).
When the dust settles he will either be that bloke that held his nerve, maintained his smart haircut, and is ready to lead the country; or the one that didn't have any policies of his own and lined up with the govt at every opportunity.
I'm guessing that voters of the former view will likely be those who might not have voted Lab before, while those of the latter, those who probably have.
Strong(ish) take. We will, however, need to win the Red Wall back to have a chance of Starmer PM and so will need to tempt some of those class trai ... tory switchers up there (who did so because of Brexit/Jez) back into our parlour.
First 'Red Wallies', now 'Class Traitories'? This is pure gold. Phrasal, not electoral, but gold nonetheless.
I bit it back. They are wonderful people. It's up to us to show them how our sophisticated values are in fact perfectly aligned with their simpler (but just as excellent) values. Leaflets will be in nice big print and will have a union jack somewhere prominent. Or if there isn't a union jack, there'll be no boasting about it not being there, no inference that its absence is saying anything in particular. Will it work? Dunno. We'll see.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
Let's not pretend you don't have a vested interest here. You want English independence so will poo poo any other suggestion to the contrary.
Federalism requires compromise if the Union is to be preserved. You may not want the Union to be preserved but plenty of people do.
That works with good faith partners. The SNP are not good faith partners. They want an end to the union.
Its like teaming up with someone who says 'I want to ditch you and will do everything I can to ditch you, and whilst we're together i'm going to keep slagging you off', that's not the basis for a lasting relationship.
Aye, poor, old good faith partners BJ and the Tory party being let down by other folk..
I'm talking about a fundamental basis of support for the union continuing. The truth isn't as clear-cut as that true, but the point remains.
For the last 20+ years part of the fundamental basis of of support for the union continuing is HMG accepting and supporting devolution. BJ & co have changed that, and as ye sow so shall ye reap.
A push for independence is not devolution it's separatism. It's the SNP which aren't interested in devolution as the endgame.
As I have said repeatedly (and no doubt tediously), if not for Brexit for which Scotland voted more enthusiastically against than England for, the SNP's main ambition would be aiming for the biggest party in the next Holyrood election, support for indy would be a steady 40-45% and Devolution would be stumbling along in it's incremental 'here's a wee bit more power' way. More sowing and reaping I'm afraid.
Maybe if No Deal but little evidence for that now we have a Brexit deal.
The final Yougov Scottish independence poll before the 2016 EU referendum in March 2016 was Yes 41% No 48% and Undecided 12%.
The latest Yougov Scottish independence poll from March 2021 was Yes 41% No 43% and Undecided 14%.
... unless of course enough of the increase to 14% undecideds fall behind the 41% on referendum day.
Your poll tells us very little. Was your poll conducted by Trafalgar?
If the 12% of Undecideds before the EU referendum in 2016 had got behind the 41% of Yes voters then Yes also would have won too (though in 2014 most Undecideds went No).
So the poll tells us quite clearly there has been effectively no change at all in reality in Scots opinion on independence because of Brexit and confirms Brexit is not a material change in circumstances.
Maybe a No Deal Brexit might have been but we now have a UK and EU trade deal
The 'deal' saves the Union. Hmmm? A bit of rosary clutching there HYUFD.
The deal and the Covid vaccinations yes, hence Yes has plunged from near 60% last year to less than 50% now including undecideds
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
"There is something rather melancholy about Hull University’s decision not to dock marks for spelling mistakes because requiring good English could be seen as “homogenous North European, white, male, elite.”
Hull is one of several universities that are adopting “inclusive assessments”. These are designed to narrow the attainment gaps between different ethnic groups in higher education. Hull insisted that dropping the requirement for a high level of proficiency in written and spoken English will “challenge the status quo”. "
Mr. 1983, not that many. Yorkshire has a surprisingly similar population and GDP to Scotland (almost identical).
Also, unlike most other parts of England, there's already an intensely strong regional identity.
Carving England into bits remains a stupid idea.
How many then, 10? The same applies. We already have a system that includes the domination of England in UK-wide matters by virtue of population size. What is the point in exchanging or adding to that to add more of the same?
Yes there already is strong regional identity - so much so that we already have braindead seperatist grievance miners for practically every region. Do we want another Scotland on our hands in 10 years?
Regional assemblies are an absurd idea that would make the regions into "another Scotland".
If we don't want a "Scotland" then the solution is to let Scotland go and move on, not to make every region of the UK like Scotland.
I half agree, but as a British person (far more so than I've ever been an English one) and as a historian, I think and feel that Britain should continue to have a political as well as a geographical identity. If it didn't exist, I think shared culture and location would make inventing it a pretty good idea. We can achieve far more together than we can apart - as history has clearly shown.
"There is something rather melancholy about Hull University’s decision not to dock marks for spelling mistakes because requiring good English could be seen as “homogenous North European, white, male, elite.”
Hull is one of several universities that are adopting “inclusive assessments”. These are designed to narrow the attainment gaps between different ethnic groups in higher education. Hull insisted that dropping the requirement for a high level of proficiency in written and spoken English will “challenge the status quo”. "
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
I think the problem is the idea of England as a monolith. If you had devolution to English regions then you would be able to see the differences within England between the South-East and the North-West.
There seems quite a strong feeling within parts of England for decisions to be devolved away from London.
If the largest constituent part of the UK is Greater London, then it's much harder for Scottish Nationalists to create a grievance about being bullied by a colonialist England.
Actually, if England is divided into regions, it can always outvote the other home nations easily, and this is going to result in far more grievance amongst the home nations, because it enshrines English dominance based on population in exactly the same way that WM does currently.
But the point is that the divisions within England are greater than those between England and Scotland.
So you wouldn't routinely have England voting one way and Scotland the other. Sometimes Scotland would have support from London, Yorkshire, or wherever.
They tried that with the North East Assembly. Problem is that most regions don't have a defined identity that is big enough.
For instance Sunderland doesn't want to be in the North East as Newcastle will dominate hence the North of Tyne Regional Mayor as every town south of the Tyne would rather nothing than letting Newcastle trump them.
I suspect the North West is the same, Yorkshire would have everywhere worried that Leeds wins over Sheffield / York / Hull, Midlands would worry about Birmingham, South West Bristol....
Most Gateshead people look towards Newcastle, not Sunderland. It should have been a Newcastle & Greater Tyneside authority. Just leave Sunderland out if they are that precious (despite having the same phone code and the same Tube network!!)
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
"There is something rather melancholy about Hull University’s decision not to dock marks for spelling mistakes because requiring good English could be seen as “homogenous North European, white, male, elite.”
Hull is one of several universities that are adopting “inclusive assessments”. These are designed to narrow the attainment gaps between different ethnic groups in higher education. Hull insisted that dropping the requirement for a high level of proficiency in written and spoken English will “challenge the status quo”. "
So who wants a worthless degree from there then? Jeez. Shut the place down. The Uni or the whole town, don't mind which.
As they possibly think Sartre said, 'Hull is other people'...
I'm completely floored by this. Virtually the only point of a degree (certainly an arts degree) these days is that it proves the holder can organise their thoughts, pull research and evidence together, be literate and fluent, etc. etc. Otherwise what's the point?
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
Well it is though.
"A sense of public service" is typically used as a "redeeming" feature for the absolutely shit Prime Ministers we have had: Theresa May, Gordon Brown
The better Prime Ministers we've had - Boris himself, Dave, Blair - had a void where a moral compass and a sense of public service was meant to be, but they were far, far better Prime Ministers.
No appetite for a debate on "best PMs" but I do find it depressing if you've concluded that moral seriousness and a strong sense of public service is not only surplus to requirements but is actually something to be avoided. As it happens I believe you do genuinely feel this way - which illustrates very well the point I'm making. But I'd ask you to think seriously about it and if possible - with no pressure from me to admit it - realize that you are part of the problem.
I'm happy with sticking with saying that politicians who bang on about "morals", "moral majority", "moral seriousness" etc are the problem.
As for "public service" it blinds people into dogmatically thinking that what they're doing is right, because its part of the "service".
Keep your morals to yourself. Keep your public service to yourself. Politics should be about us making choices depending upon our own morals thank you. Politics should be about the public choosing what kind of service we want.
Not banging on about honesty and integrity. Just demonstrating some. It's important and ought to be a low bar.
Demand a little more, Philip. Politics is not like running a supermarket.
Integrity like "pretty straight kind of guy" Blair?
Where's this "bar" of yours set?
Blair followed a familiar template - pretending to be lilywhite. Johnson is a much more recent phenomenon - the ironic marketing of transgression.
I think the epithet you're looking for is 'Bakhtinian'. And it's not that new - Alcibiades did quite well out of it.
In Anglo-American and modern western statecraft, it's brand new.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
Not sure if that's what you intended, but kind of implicit that the 'UK' Parliament would always support England..
Well the 'UK' Parliament would be on a 1 person 1 vote basis so would usually reflect England's wishes.
And so we have the WLQ. On a fundamental head count, England always gets it's way.
Brexit would have been like this:
England - Yes Wales - Yes UK - Yes Scotland - No Northern Ireland - No
Brexit goes through constitutionally. If Wales had also voted against, it would not have passed, despite England.
That's an utter dogs dinner, you could have a situation where a vast majority of people want a policy but blockers in the other home nations have comparatively a vast higher level of influence.
Say on a vote we have:
80/20 England 45/55 Other countries.
I won't do the maths, but on that basis the vote would fail even if maybe 60-70% of overall votes were for it.
In fact, in a campaign, you wouldn't put any resources for 'no' into England, just go for the others, as the vote in England doesn't matter anymore.
Well yeah, that's federalism.
Which works when the numbers of federal states are high enough so not one can dominate. In the UK we would, have 5 states, and one which is 10 times as big as the closest other.
What country works on that basis?
The logical answer is to subdivide England. London has different interests to Cornwall, etc
It would work if the regional devolution was at a similar level to Wales, so that Westminster doesn't become irrelevant. Unfortunately, getting powers back from Scotland to make the whole thing fair is not going to be easy.
English regions would decline the offer of devolution, and they would have no choice but to put it to a referendum. It is less devolution not more that we need. There is far too much politics in Scotland for a population the same as Yorkshire. We need less.
Certainly less devolution in Scotland, yes. But how to achieve that?
I'd prefer Holyrood was abolished but that isn't going to wash. The whole set up was a stupid idea in the first place and the current situation was the inevitable result.
Taking back powers as a UK wide settlement might just about hold. Otherwise the only end of this is independence, regardless of who is the PM. If you don't vote for a national party, you can never vote for the government, so the grievances will continue, whether it is Labour or Tories in No 10.
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone in the UK could look at the US and the mess of federal and state (not to mention municipal) responsibilities and competencies and say, "yeah, that's the model I want to follow".
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
I agree entirely - my proposal (I know you're not addressing me personally) is a cost-free one, that just involves the 'heads' of the UK, England, Scotland, NI and Wales, voting to rubber-stamp the key non-devolved issues, like foreign treaties, war, and perhaps the pivotal finance and defence investments, where such decisions would now simply require a WM vote, or be made using the PM's Royal prerogative.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
What a sclerotic nightmare.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
Yes, Wales, NI and Scotland voting together, would be able to vote something down - or to put it another way, the UK PM would need to convince at least one other home nation except England of the wisdom of a decision before it passed. Is that really such a big ask? That one other home nation thinks something isn't a complete crock of shit?
That would be a total nightmare in practice, especially given the current situations in the four nations.
You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.
The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
Let's not pretend you don't have a vested interest here. You want English independence so will poo poo any other suggestion to the contrary.
Federalism requires compromise if the Union is to be preserved. You may not want the Union to be preserved but plenty of people do.
That works with good faith partners. The SNP are not good faith partners. They want an end to the union.
Its like teaming up with someone who says 'I want to ditch you and will do everything I can to ditch you, and whilst we're together i'm going to keep slagging you off', that's not the basis for a lasting relationship.
Aye, poor, old good faith partners BJ and the Tory party being let down by other folk..
I'm talking about a fundamental basis of support for the union continuing. The truth isn't as clear-cut as that true, but the point remains.
For the last 20+ years part of the fundamental basis of of support for the union continuing is HMG accepting and supporting devolution. BJ & co have changed that, and as ye sow so shall ye reap.
A push for independence is not devolution it's separatism. It's the SNP which aren't interested in devolution as the endgame.
As I have said repeatedly (and no doubt tediously), if not for Brexit for which Scotland voted more enthusiastically against than England for, the SNP's main ambition would be aiming for the biggest party in the next Holyrood election, support for indy would be a steady 40-45% and Devolution would be stumbling along in it's incremental 'here's a wee bit more power' way. More sowing and reaping I'm afraid.
Maybe if No Deal but little evidence for that now we have a Brexit deal.
The final Yougov Scottish independence poll before the 2016 EU referendum in March 2016 was Yes 41% No 48% and Undecided 12%.
The latest Yougov Scottish independence poll from March 2021 was Yes 41% No 43% and Undecided 14%.
... unless of course enough of the increase to 14% undecideds fall behind the 41% on referendum day.
Your poll tells us very little. Was your poll conducted by Trafalgar?
If the 12% of Undecideds before the EU referendum in 2016 had got behind the 41% of Yes voters then Yes also would have won too (though in 2014 most Undecideds went No).
So the poll tells us quite clearly there has been effectively no change at all in reality in Scots opinion on independence because of Brexit and confirms Brexit is not a material change in circumstances.
Maybe a No Deal Brexit might have been but we now have a UK and EU trade deal
The 'deal' saves the Union. Hmmm? A bit of rosary clutching there HYUFD.
The deal and the Covid vaccinations yes, hence Yes has plunged from near 60% last year to less than 50% now including undecideds
But vaccine provision has been devolved. I would say that in Scotland that reality has been accepted by the voters, and the Scottish NHS under the gaze of the SNP Government have vaccinated nearly 50% of the population. Well done!
I accept in Wales the opposite is understood to be true. Boris Johnson organised the vaccine provision programme (and he has personally done a fine job) whilst Drakeford closed the pubs and they are still shut.
That will reward the SNP in Scotland and the Conservatives in Wales, and as we are focusing on Scotland, that inevitably leads down the road of Scottish independence.
P.S. Johnson is well loved in Wales and hated in Scotland. This is where your view that if Johnson can hold off SindyRef2 until Starmer we might have a chance to save the Union may work.
In terms of legacy — it took a good 10-20 years before the true consequences of Devolution have only started to become clear.
We will have to wait the same time period before the true consequences of Brexit start to become clear.
Labour introduced the Minimum Wage but it was the Conservatives who ran with it with the "National Living Wage" etc. Perhaps in 10 years it will be Labour pushing "Brexit" to a new level.
There's so many unknowns.
Blame the consequences of devolution on the Blair years if you want. Devolution worked reasonably well (NI excepted for traditional reasons) until Johnson came in with his boots on.
Oh cut the crap.
It worked so well that Scotland has had a dominant nationalist majority in Holyrood since long before Johnson came in.
Asymmetric devolution has made a pigs breakfast of the union for years now. There is no solution to the WLQ, Holyrood has power but no responsibility so can just blame Westminster for everything bad, there's no English devolution and so on and so forth. Its a mess and not one of Johnson's making - not one that anybody has a solution for because there is no solution.
No matter what you do England will forever be worth more than 80% of MPs because simply England outweighs all nations tremendously. Its not a stable situation for a federal structure.
The WLQ predates Holyrood by 20+ years.
There needs to be an English Parliament.
All four Parliaments then need to raise most of their own money.
Agreed. Really the only thing which will save 'the union' will be devo max, and the removing of this tension.
but devomax doesn't work when one country will always overwhelm the other 3 as it has 80% of the population so will always end up with 80% of the vote.
I like @Luckyguy1983 's suggestion to give the proportional equivalent of one vote to each devolved nation and one vote to the "UK" parliament. That means that England only ever needs the support of one other home nation to railroad anything through, reflecting its relative size and importance.
I think that's a terrible idea.
One person, one vote. If that means England can get its way then so be it, England is over 80% of the union and that's democracy.
If the other nations don't want England to be able to act unilaterally, then they need to be independent of England. Its perfectly viable.
Let's not pretend you don't have a vested interest here. You want English independence so will poo poo any other suggestion to the contrary.
Federalism requires compromise if the Union is to be preserved. You may not want the Union to be preserved but plenty of people do.
That works with good faith partners. The SNP are not good faith partners. They want an end to the union.
Its like teaming up with someone who says 'I want to ditch you and will do everything I can to ditch you, and whilst we're together i'm going to keep slagging you off', that's not the basis for a lasting relationship.
Aye, poor, old good faith partners BJ and the Tory party being let down by other folk..
I'm talking about a fundamental basis of support for the union continuing. The truth isn't as clear-cut as that true, but the point remains.
For the last 20+ years part of the fundamental basis of of support for the union continuing is HMG accepting and supporting devolution. BJ & co have changed that, and as ye sow so shall ye reap.
A push for independence is not devolution it's separatism. It's the SNP which aren't interested in devolution as the endgame.
As I have said repeatedly (and no doubt tediously), if not for Brexit for which Scotland voted more enthusiastically against than England for, the SNP's main ambition would be aiming for the biggest party in the next Holyrood election, support for indy would be a steady 40-45% and Devolution would be stumbling along in it's incremental 'here's a wee bit more power' way. More sowing and reaping I'm afraid.
Maybe if No Deal but little evidence for that now we have a Brexit deal.
The final Yougov Scottish independence poll before the 2016 EU referendum in March 2016 was Yes 41% No 48% and Undecided 12%.
The latest Yougov Scottish independence poll from March 2021 was Yes 41% No 43% and Undecided 14%.
... unless of course enough of the increase to 14% undecideds fall behind the 41% on referendum day.
Your poll tells us very little. Was your poll conducted by Trafalgar?
If the 12% of Undecideds before the EU referendum in 2016 had got behind the 41% of Yes voters then Yes also would have won too (though in 2014 most Undecideds went No).
So the poll tells us quite clearly there has been effectively no change at all in reality in Scots opinion on independence because of Brexit and confirms Brexit is not a material change in circumstances.
Maybe a No Deal Brexit might have been but we now have a UK and EU trade deal
The 'deal' saves the Union. Hmmm? A bit of rosary clutching there HYUFD.
The deal and the Covid vaccinations yes, hence Yes has plunged from near 60% last year to less than 50% now including undecideds
But vaccine provision has been devolved. I would say that in Scotland that reality has been accepted by the voters, and the Scottish NHS under the gaze of the SNP Government have vaccinated nearly 50% of the population. Well done!
I accept in Wales the opposite is understood to be true. Boris Johnson organised the vaccine provision programme (and he has personally done a fine job) whilst Drakeford closed the pubs and they are still shut.
That will reward the SNP in Scotland and the Conservatives in Wales, and as we are focusing on Scotland, that inevitably leads down the road of Scottish independence.
P.S. Johnson is well loved in Wales and hated in Scotland. This is where your view that if Johnson can hold off SindyRef2 until Starmer we might have a chance to save the Union may work.
AIUI Johnson had little or nothing to do with either vaccine purchase or administration. Unusually the Government found someone who knew what they were doing (Bingham) to organise purchase and left it to the NHS Establishment to handle administration.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
He is unfortunate in that he has found himself in the position of having had to agree with everything the government has proposed for the past year ("oh but we would have done it like this" doesn't cut it for political not-interesteds).
When the dust settles he will either be that bloke that held his nerve, maintained his smart haircut, and is ready to lead the country; or the one that didn't have any policies of his own and lined up with the govt at every opportunity.
I'm guessing that voters of the former view will likely be those who might not have voted Lab before, while those of the latter, those who probably have.
Strong(ish) take. We will, however, need to win the Red Wall back to have a chance of Starmer PM and so will need to tempt some of those class trai ... tory switchers up there (who did so because of Brexit/Jez) back into our parlour.
First 'Red Wallies', now 'Class Traitories'? This is pure gold. Phrasal, not electoral, but gold nonetheless.
I bit it back. They are wonderful people. It's up to us to show them how our sophisticated values are in fact perfectly aligned with their simpler (but just as excellent) values. Leaflets will be in nice big print and will have a union jack somewhere prominent. Or if there isn't a union jack, there'll be no boasting about it not being there, no inference that its absence is saying anything in particular. Will it work? Dunno. We'll see.
Of those many people who are conservatives but comparatively poor: should they vote with their beliefs or abandon those beliefs in favour of self-interest through a spurious LP-stoked class war lens? Should they vote on principle or on self- interest? (Same goes for rich Tories of course.)
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
He is unfortunate in that he has found himself in the position of having had to agree with everything the government has proposed for the past year ("oh but we would have done it like this" doesn't cut it for political not-interesteds).
When the dust settles he will either be that bloke that held his nerve, maintained his smart haircut, and is ready to lead the country; or the one that didn't have any policies of his own and lined up with the govt at every opportunity.
I'm guessing that voters of the former view will likely be those who might not have voted Lab before, while those of the latter, those who probably have.
Strong(ish) take. We will, however, need to win the Red Wall back to have a chance of Starmer PM and so will need to tempt some of those class trai ... tory switchers up there (who did so because of Brexit/Jez) back into our parlour.
First 'Red Wallies', now 'Class Traitories'? This is pure gold. Phrasal, not electoral, but gold nonetheless.
I bit it back. They are wonderful people. It's up to us to show them how our sophisticated values are in fact perfectly aligned with their simpler (but just as excellent) values. Leaflets will be in nice big print and will have a union jack somewhere prominent. Or if there isn't a union jack, there'll be no boasting about it not being there, no inference that its absence is saying anything in particular. Will it work? Dunno. We'll see.
Of those many people who are conservatives but comparatively poor: should they vote with their beliefs or abandon those beliefs in favour of self-interest through a spurious LP-stoked class war lens? Should they vote on principle or on self- interest? (Same goes for rich Tories of course.)
Beliefs. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, live in Hampstead or Hartlepool, if you have tory values you should vote tory. However you should be careful about this manifestation of the party. They are a rum bunch. I'd be asking myself, if I were a tory inclined voter, are they actually offering me what I normally look to get from tory governments? I'd be giving that very serious thought and I hope the real ones will. Especially those not particularly driven by nationalistic sentiment.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
He is unfortunate in that he has found himself in the position of having had to agree with everything the government has proposed for the past year ("oh but we would have done it like this" doesn't cut it for political not-interesteds).
When the dust settles he will either be that bloke that held his nerve, maintained his smart haircut, and is ready to lead the country; or the one that didn't have any policies of his own and lined up with the govt at every opportunity.
I'm guessing that voters of the former view will likely be those who might not have voted Lab before, while those of the latter, those who probably have.
Strong(ish) take. We will, however, need to win the Red Wall back to have a chance of Starmer PM and so will need to tempt some of those class trai ... tory switchers up there (who did so because of Brexit/Jez) back into our parlour.
First 'Red Wallies', now 'Class Traitories'? This is pure gold. Phrasal, not electoral, but gold nonetheless.
I bit it back. They are wonderful people. It's up to us to show them how our sophisticated values are in fact perfectly aligned with their simpler (but just as excellent) values. Leaflets will be in nice big print and will have a union jack somewhere prominent. Or if there isn't a union jack, there'll be no boasting about it not being there, no inference that its absence is saying anything in particular. Will it work? Dunno. We'll see.
Of those many people who are conservatives but comparatively poor: should they vote with their beliefs or abandon those beliefs in favour of self-interest through a spurious LP-stoked class war lens? Should they vote on principle or on self- interest? (Same goes for rich Tories of course.)
Beliefs. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, live in Hampstead or Hartlepool, if you have tory values you should vote tory. However you should be careful about this manifestation of the party. They are a rum bunch. I'd be asking myself, if I were a tory inclined voter, are they actually offering me what I normally look to get from tory governments? I'd be giving that very serious thought and I hope the real ones will. Especially those not particularly driven by nationalistic sentiment.
Good, we're agreed - beliefs. Or ideology to make it clearer. Not keen on the class war thing.
He's making the point that cases will inevitably rise as we unlock but that we have to accept it and carry on - isn't that exactly what you've been saying?
Boris Johnson has warned that coronavirus infections will rise as lockdown eases, but said there is no reason to change the proposed roadmap to end restrictions.
"People, I don't think, appreciate that it's the lockdown that has been overwhelmingly important in delivering this improvement," Mr Johnson said. "Of course the vaccination programme has helped, but the bulk of work in reducing disease has been done by the lockdown.
"So, as we unlock, the result will inevitably be that we will see more infection, sadly we will see more hospitalisation and deaths. People have just got to understand that."
The messaging is stupid though – did you watch the clip? He needs to engage brain before opening mouth.
it's impossible for this particular government to get a grip on this particular problem - rock bottom standards in public life - because it is led by an individual whose (very powerful) political brand is built upon encouraging the perception that such matters are "dull" and even a teeny bit "party pooping". So long as the public keep buying into the brand, keep rewarding its owner with their votes, there is no chance whatsoever of any progress on this. It will have to wait until there's a change at the top. Not any old change either. A big change.
BoZo's brand is built on cheating and lies.
The public are apparently fully supportive of that.
My point put rather more baldly!
I can tbf see the appeal of some facets of the Boris Brand. The positivity. The light touch. The vivid language. Not everything about it is toxic. But what is toxic - very - is the idea that a moral compass and a sense of public service is for po-faced dullards who take themselves and life too seriously. And sadly this comes with the product because it's integral to it.
You can't go to the store and say, "I'll have a Boris but one WITH a moral compass and sense of public service please."
That's not on the shelves.
But a big part of Boris's appeal is what he isn't. Jeremy Corbyn personified what a lot of voters distrust about the left as a whole. Now the cartoon bogeyman has gone, but a lot of what he represented is still there in 'the left'. The dislike of Britain and its history and its instincts and its culture. The instinct that it doesn't particularly like the British and would prefer they were rather different. The constant manufactured outrage. Now, you might well argue that Starmer has tried, with some success, to move away from this. But it doesn't strike voters as instinctive, and voters don't trust the party behind him. If Corbyn is the bogeyman, people aren't convinced that Starmer is not-Corbyn enough. I don't know, realistically, what more he could have done so far, but that's where we are. Boris is still getting a great deal of benefit from being convincingly not Corbyn.
This is a big part of Labour's challenge. The truth is Starmer has marginalized the hard left. The people and attitudes you're talking about are not influential now. But of course Team Tory will run this line for as long as it pays dividends. My feeling is that Starmer is all over this danger and it's right at the top of his list for GE24 to nullify it. Will he succeed? I think he will on this score. Which doesn't mean a Labour government, but it does mean a competitive election.
It's all about not scaring the horses, and Starmer doesn't scare the horses. Whether or not that is converted into a win all depends on how the land lies for the Government in a post- pandemic reality. One thing that I am heartened by is that the Government's ten point poll lead is very soft (as was Labou's poll parity last year).
Agreed. What I meant is that blatting the "unpatriotic" smear plus (related) looking like a credible PM to floating voters is the de minimus. You're in the game then and have a chance to win depending on various other factors (eg state of the economy).
I am more saying what Starmer thinks, btw, than what I think. But I reckon that's more interesting for people atm. Me, I'm holding off until this time next year before deciding whether the strategy looks a good one.
He is unfortunate in that he has found himself in the position of having had to agree with everything the government has proposed for the past year ("oh but we would have done it like this" doesn't cut it for political not-interesteds).
When the dust settles he will either be that bloke that held his nerve, maintained his smart haircut, and is ready to lead the country; or the one that didn't have any policies of his own and lined up with the govt at every opportunity.
I'm guessing that voters of the former view will likely be those who might not have voted Lab before, while those of the latter, those who probably have.
Strong(ish) take. We will, however, need to win the Red Wall back to have a chance of Starmer PM and so will need to tempt some of those class trai ... tory switchers up there (who did so because of Brexit/Jez) back into our parlour.
First 'Red Wallies', now 'Class Traitories'? This is pure gold. Phrasal, not electoral, but gold nonetheless.
I bit it back. They are wonderful people. It's up to us to show them how our sophisticated values are in fact perfectly aligned with their simpler (but just as excellent) values. Leaflets will be in nice big print and will have a union jack somewhere prominent. Or if there isn't a union jack, there'll be no boasting about it not being there, no inference that its absence is saying anything in particular. Will it work? Dunno. We'll see.
Of those many people who are conservatives but comparatively poor: should they vote with their beliefs or abandon those beliefs in favour of self-interest through a spurious LP-stoked class war lens? Should they vote on principle or on self- interest? (Same goes for rich Tories of course.)
Beliefs. Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, live in Hampstead or Hartlepool, if you have tory values you should vote tory. However you should be careful about this manifestation of the party. They are a rum bunch. I'd be asking myself, if I were a tory inclined voter, are they actually offering me what I normally look to get from tory governments? I'd be giving that very serious thought and I hope the real ones will. Especially those not particularly driven by nationalistic sentiment.
Good, we're agreed - beliefs. Or ideology to make it clearer. Not keen on the class war thing.
Ah that's just banter - that 'class traitors' thing. I do get frustrated by working class voters getting sucked into softhead nationalism and voting tory against a labour offering that (imo) would benefit them materially, but that's their prerogative. You don't have a duty to vote labour just purely because you're working class. It doesn't work that way anymore and that's fair enough.
Comments
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/19/tabula-rasa-volume-two
How is it not the same thing? Being able to laugh things off doesn't cover them up, it just moves the conversation on.
For instance Sunderland doesn't want to be in the North East as Newcastle will dominate hence the North of Tyne Regional Mayor as every town south of the Tyne would rather nothing than letting Newcastle trump them.
I suspect the North West is the same, Yorkshire would have everywhere worried that Leeds wins over Sheffield / York / Hull, Midlands would worry about Birmingham, South West Bristol....
Yes there already is strong regional identity - so much so that we already have braindead seperatist grievance miners for practically every region. Do we want another Scotland on our hands in 10 years?
It may - it probably won't, but it may - provide a more stable and long-lasting resolution to the constitutional issue. However, it cannot possibly be worth making absolutely every aspect of day-to-day life for everyone in England more complicated. Taxes, healthcare, education, transport - just some of the many areas where having a regional structure sitting below the federal government would need to have some involvement, purely to justify their existence.
And all to solve a problem that essentially boils down to a minority of rabble-rousers in Scotland who lost the argument seven years ago and now need to be put back in their box.
Slice England into bits and it'll be a few years before you have demagogues in London complaining about their taxes being sent elsewhere and leaders in Yorkshire complaining they don't get the same spending per head as London.
We've seen with Scotland what happens when you permanently embed a political division. Do it throughout England it's a recipe for disaster and yet greater division.
It's an act of madness to look at Holyrood and think that needs replicating multiple times across England, slicing England to bits in the process.
Do we want a SW/SE/whatever legal system, a taxation system, a health system, and all the other things to bring these regions up to the same level of devolution as Scotland would do.
It would be a utter mess and waste of money.
In 1939 Scotland had a population of 5 million. England's was 38m. Today the figures are 5.5m and 57m.
There would be no change to daily life for anyone. An English Parliament is not a necessary pre-requisite, though an English 'leader' is, but he or she could be elected by English WM MPs.
If we don't want a "Scotland" then the solution is to let Scotland go and move on, not to make every region of the UK like Scotland.
So the First Minister's of Wales, NI and Scotland can just veto everything and lead to us never making any decisions?
And even worse these decisions couldn't be settled UK-wide at UK General Elections anymore?
What an absolute nightmare. Sounds even worse than us being in the European Union.
YIKES!
I'd prefer Holyrood was abolished but that isn't going to wash. The whole set up was a stupid idea in the first place and the current situation was the inevitable result.
Taking back powers as a UK wide settlement might just about hold. Otherwise the only end of this is independence, regardless of who is the PM. If you don't vote for a national party, you can never vote for the government, so the grievances will continue, whether it is Labour or Tories in No 10.
You’d want something like the current HoC, but rebalanced so that English MPs don’t hold a majority. You’d definitely still want some Con and Lab representatives from Scotland, for example.
The four nation Parliaments should have no say at all on UK-wide policy and legislation, just as in the US the state legislatures and governors have no say on federal policy.
I accept in Wales the opposite is understood to be true. Boris Johnson organised the vaccine provision programme (and he has personally done a fine job) whilst Drakeford closed the pubs and they are still shut.
That will reward the SNP in Scotland and the Conservatives in Wales, and as we are focusing on Scotland, that inevitably leads down the road of Scottish independence.
P.S. Johnson is well loved in Wales and hated in Scotland. This is where your view that if Johnson can hold off SindyRef2 until Starmer we might have a chance to save the Union may work.