politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The winner of the PB Indyref competition is….
Comments
-
he looks like he'd enjoy that.Tykejohnno said:
Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick
Sunday Times front page - "Top Tories lash PM over Scotland deal" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/rlVyB1jE8m0 -
Ah I see you are being a twisty little beggar. Correct there is no compulsion but the country in which they do finally make their application has the right to return them to the first safe country they passed through.BenM said:
This is just wrong.Easterross said:
An Asylum Seeker is supposed to claim asylum in the first EU country s/he enters, not wait until s/he has crossed at least 2 or 3 member states before entering the UK and then claiming it. As most are from North Africa or Afghanistan at present, they should be claiming it in Malta, Italy or Spain since those are the countries they arrive in by boat. We have enough unoccupied islands off the coast of England, Wales and Scotland that the government could build reception camps on and put them all in pending determination of their applications. Any who are doctors, nurses, engineers etc could quickly be moved to suitable housing and allowed to work and contribute to the economy.BenM said:
Actually no.Socrates said:
Well, given that any illegal immigrant can just make a claim for asylum and immediately gets asylum seeker status until the full appeals process has worked out, there's not much to differentiate them.BenM said:
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.Socrates said:With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
The full weight of international law differentiates an Asylum Seeker - a legal status with associated legal protections - from an "illegal immigrant".
There is no legal compulsion on someone seeking Asylum to do so in the next safe country.
As I said, try to understand article 31 of the UN convention.
This is also the case in the EU under the Dublin II regulations.0 -
Huh? They don't want EV4EM?Tykejohnno said:
Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick
Sunday Times front page - "Top Tories lash PM over Scotland deal" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/rlVyB1jE8m
0 -
It was the determination of the oldies to vote that won this referendum for NO. I sat in a polling station nearly all day in Aberdeen and on crutches in wheelchairs even one on a stretcher.....they came in their droves. The son in law of the man on the stretcher said he was terrified of what YES would lead to and this was the story of the day. They were simply terrified of what the change meant.
As for the Westminster politicians making a difference....I was with some very committed NOES and none of them thought Cameron Milliband and Clegg did anything but harm. This was a Scottish affair.
The only person who was credited with making a difference was Brown who some thought strengthened the resolve of the NO voters. Personally I don't believe there is anything the YES camp could have done. The silent majority were just overwhelming.0 -
Wow Ed is CrapTheScreamingEagles said:YouGov poll
Has Ed Miliband been a strong leader of the Labour Party?
Yes 9% No 55%
Is Ed Miliband up to the job of PM
Yes 20%, No 60% DK 20%
VI figures must be dire and surely they will not be showing a LAB lead0 -
Oh they do get it, their opposition to this is very much more cynical than anything else.Slackbladder said:
To break its down to its basic level, many on the left simply dont get, or understand, or want grapple with the concept of 'England'
0 -
Labour cannot win the next election with those numbers.TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov poll
Has Ed Miliband been a strong leader of the Labour Party?
Yes 9% No 55%
Is Ed Miliband up to the job of PM
Yes 20%, No 60% DK 20%
0 -
Not yet.bigjohnowls said:
Do you have the VI?TheScreamingEagles said:More Sunday Times YouGov polling
Who would make the right decisions on the economy
Clegg 3%, Farage 5%, Miliband 17%, Cameron 35%
Even Labour supporters remain unconvinced. Only half think he is doing well, trust him on the economy or believe he is up to being PM. In contrast fully 90% of Tories think highly of Cameron.0 -
they obviously can't see the wood for the trees.MarkHopkins said:
Huh? They don't want EV4EM?Tykejohnno said:
Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick
Sunday Times front page - "Top Tories lash PM over Scotland deal" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/rlVyB1jE8m
0 -
It gets better.
Clegg meister has done a piece for the Sunday Times.....
Headline is
We must keep our ‘no’ vote pledge, and see Britain reborn
Honour demands we devolve more powers, says Nick Clegg. Then let’s write a constitution
and there's this from the main piece
The Conservatives, in their rush to protect themselves from an attack from the right, are concerned only about English votes on English matters. Of course we need a solution to this dilemma but, by appearing to link it to the delivery of further devolution to Scotland, they risk reneging on the commitment made to the Scottish people that, in the event of a “no” vote, new powers would be granted, come what may.0 -
feckin lol!peter_from_putney said:
It really was extraordinary both the speed and extent to which public opinion shifted. Has anyone got close to discovering how or why this happened?TheScreamingEagles said:From the Sunday Times
It was a Sunday Times poll that first signalled the independence threat, and one government minister paused in Westminster last week to tell a member of the paper’s staff: “I think you’ve saved the Union. That poll came just in time.”
It certainly had a galvanising effect, as Westminster’s complacency was shattered and Cameron appeared in danger of presiding over a constitutional disaster that might cost him his political career. One senior Tory visited Lord Chadlington, president of Cameron’s constituency association in Oxfordshire, to tell him that the prime minister “will have to go”.
If so they should put it in a can and sell it the highest bidder in time for GE May 2015.
It wasn't a Sunday Times Poll that "first" signalled the "threat". Posters on PB who have the vaguest clue about Scotland were warning about it for a long, long time. Months. Even years.
They were usually ignored, called "trolls" or "cybernats", or sometimes banned for little or no reason.
0 -
Stewart Bell ✔ @StewartBellNP
BREAKING NEWS: Canada revokes passports from foreign fighters in Iraq & Syria. http://natpo.st/1qTAA6P via @nationalpost
0 -
Except they willDanSmith said:
Labour cannot win the next election with those numbers.TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov poll
Has Ed Miliband been a strong leader of the Labour Party?
Yes 9% No 55%
Is Ed Miliband up to the job of PM
Yes 20%, No 60% DK 20%
0 -
To which most tories would say 'tough s***'TheScreamingEagles said:It gets better.
Clegg meister has done a piece for the Sunday Times.....
Headline is
We must keep our ‘no’ vote pledge, and see Britain reborn
Honour demands we devolve more powers, says Nick Clegg. Then let’s write a constitution
and there's this from the main piece
The Conservatives, in their rush to protect themselves from an attack from the right, are concerned only about English votes on English matters. Of course we need a solution to this dilemma but, by appearing to link it to the delivery of further devolution to Scotland, they risk reneging on the commitment made to the Scottish people that, in the event of a “no” vote, new powers would be granted, come what may.0 -
Are Ed's personal ratings below Brown levels?0
-
Apparently I put 53% yes when I meant to put 53% no. Never mind.0
-
Follow Jacks ARSE, and MCARSE and remember "Ed Miliband will never be prime minister"DanSmith said:
Labour cannot win the next election with those numbers.TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov poll
Has Ed Miliband been a strong leader of the Labour Party?
Yes 9% No 55%
Is Ed Miliband up to the job of PM
Yes 20%, No 60% DK 20%
Though I think Jack underestimates UKIPs suppository like effect...0 -
How many of the 35% and 90% think Cameron has been "paying down Britain's debts" instead of increasing them by £600bn ?TheScreamingEagles said:More Sunday Times YouGov polling
Who would make the right decisions on the economy
Clegg 3%, Farage 5%, Miliband 17%, Cameron 35%
Even Labour supporters remain unconvinced. Only half think he is doing well, trust him on the economy or believe he is up to being PM. In contrast fully 90% of Tories think highly of Cameron.
0 -
Wrong about what?Slackbladder said:
OGH and the PB Kinnocks, always wrong, never learn...TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov/Sunday Times polling
72% of English voters think Scottish MPs should no longer have the vote in parliament on issues that affect only England.
Perhaps more significantly, 55% think that Scottish MPs should play no part in tax and spending decisions taken in London, even though these do affect life in Scotland.
2/3 of English voters want to scrap the Barnett formula that ensures Scotland receives more public cash per person than England from central government.
You PB Tories can froth yourself into a puddle all you want, but Cameron and Gideon's latest master strategic little jolly wheeze to "get Labour" will a) not happen and b) have no impact on the next General Election.
0 -
The Polling from the Mail on Sunday
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2763698/You-say-YES-English-votes-English-laws-MoS-poll-shows-fury-handouts-Scots.html0 -
Thanks, Mr. J., I am glad as always to have your opinion, even if on this occasion you have it completely wrong. Cameron, and you can trust me on this, is complete and utter [Moderated].JosiasJessop said:
I'm pretty sure Mr Llama's wrong on that, as he usually is when he talks about Cameron. It's an unusual blind spot he has.OldKingCole said:
Congrats to the winners.HurstLlama said:
No I don't think you have missed anyone out. Its Cameron's MO. it worked for him at school, it worked for him at Uni, it worked for him so far in politics. And when he is thrown out of government next May it still won't occur to him to consider that actually planning ahead, thinking about what might happen and putting positions into place in advance is a good trait to have, especially as a top level leader.Carnyx said:
I won't say [edit: one way or another, though he did at least not do a Rajoy] what I think of Mr C, but I can entirely agree with what else you say. As I well recall at the time, the devomax option was clearly understood amongst pro-indy sites, etc., to be dependent on the agreement of the rest of the UK - so the notion was certainly out there at the time of the Edinburgh Agreement (as were at least initial discussions about the problems of England's governance in the UK, sympathetic ones too). But hey, we were a bunch of nats, so who cared? And when Mr Cameron had 'defeated' Mr Salmond by saying no to indyref, how the media cheered.
The other question is why Mr Cameron was more frightened of his backbenchers than the Scots, and risked the Union instead of talking them through what might be necessary. He did have two years, and could have made it clear at the start that "we will offer the third option with full details at the time, but if it's not a goer, it's a plain yes/no indyref".
Instead, look what we ****** get! He's managed to upset, oh, everyone on PB? or am I missing anyone out?
Cameron is just not a leader. If he had applied for Sandhurst there is a good chance, given his background, that he would have got in and got through the course. When he arrived in battalion however his platoon would have ripped him up for arse-paper and he would have been back into civvy street inside a year.
And to Mr Llama for putting his finger on Call-me-Dave's fatal flaw. As some one said a day or so ago he's been lucky and once your luck runs out ......
...
You see him otherwise. I don't hold that against you but someone doing a sanity inspector's job might.
0 -
I believe many,many more English voters have become at least aware of the Barnett formula over the last few weeks, even if they don't yet understand much about the details.Slackbladder said:
OGH and the PB Kinnocks, always wrong, never learn...TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov/Sunday Times polling
72% of English voters think Scottish MPs should no longer have the vote in parliament on issues that affect only England.
Perhaps more significantly, 55% think that Scottish MPs should play no part in tax and spending decisions taken in London, even though these do affect life in Scotland.
2/3 of English voters want to scrap the Barnett formula that ensures Scotland receives more public cash per person than England from central government.
OGH, Richard Nabavi and others believe it's a total irrelevance ..... well, we'll see as DevoMax comes to the fore over the coming months and we hear more and more about free prescriptions, free University tuition, free care for the elderly, etc., etc., all available to the Scots, but not to the English, despite both being subject to the same tax regime.
Far from going away, more and more attention is likely to be focused on Barnett, which even its author now concedes was a "terrible mistake"0 -
Pushing for regional devolution would make it worse for Labour, nobody but those who would personally gain wants it.DanSmith said:
Labour has lost the argument over this, if they are wise they will push for regional devolution across England which will take power away from Westminster and reduce the pain they are going to take from losing the Scottish MPs.TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov/Sunday Times polling
72% of English voters think Scottish MPs should no longer have the vote in parliament on issues that affect only England.
0 -
He is much crapper.Danny565 said:Are Ed's personal ratings below Brown levels?
Dont you come on PB often.
The fact every opinion poll has him as PM cannot hide how crap he is
0 -
Both Lib Dems and Yes voters probably more active online, volatile and young, etc, meaning over representation and over reasonTheScreamingEagles said:
I said at the time, it felt like the Cleggasm, a modest shift, that just got amplified beyond all recognition.peter_from_putney said:
It really was extraordinary both the speed and extent to which public opinion shifted. Has anyone got close to discovering how or why this happened?TheScreamingEagles said:From the Sunday Times
It was a Sunday Times poll that first signalled the independence threat, and one government minister paused in Westminster last week to tell a member of the paper’s staff: “I think you’ve saved the Union. That poll came just in time.”
It certainly had a galvanising effect, as Westminster’s complacency was shattered and Cameron appeared in danger of presiding over a constitutional disaster that might cost him his political career. One senior Tory visited Lord Chadlington, president of Cameron’s constituency association in Oxfordshire, to tell him that the prime minister “will have to go”.
If so they should put it in a can and sell it the highest bidder in time for GE May 2015.0 -
Perhaps said plods had deserved it.TheScreamingEagles said:Front page of the Indy isn't good for Andrew Mitchell
"Plebgate: 'Mitchell had record of abusing police'"
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByASy0nIQAAQVt8.jpg
There's no shortage of plods about who deserve abuse followed by jail terms.
0 -
So MCARSE was wrong by circa 4% and his GE2015 will be wrong re Ed is Crapfoxinsoxuk said:
Follow Jacks ARSE, and MCARSE and remember "Ed Miliband will never be prime minister"DanSmith said:
Labour cannot win the next election with those numbers.TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov poll
Has Ed Miliband been a strong leader of the Labour Party?
Yes 9% No 55%
Is Ed Miliband up to the job of PM
Yes 20%, No 60% DK 20%
Though I think Jack underestimates UKIPs suppository like effect...0 -
Either you devolve powers down to everyone who wants them or you don't. This pick and mix situation we are sleepwalking into is only going to see the UK break within our lifetimes.another_richard said:Pushing for regional devolution would make it worse for Labour, nobody but those who would personally gain wants it.
0 -
I keep going back and forth. On the one hand, I find it hard to see how they could win with a leader who commands so little public respect, and when the party generally is at very best leaving people unenthused. On the other hand, it's hard to see how a party who haven't won a majority in 22 years and counting could do so when living standards are so terrible, when they've pissed off everyone who isn't a rich, white, middle-aged/old, southern English man, and when the whole party is liable to have a Euro-explosion at any minute. There's a list as long as your arm of why neither party should be able to win.DanSmith said:
Labour cannot win the next election with those numbers.TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov poll
Has Ed Miliband been a strong leader of the Labour Party?
Yes 9% No 55%
Is Ed Miliband up to the job of PM
Yes 20%, No 60% DK 20%
0 -
I've got a piece coming up with shows facebook and twitter are the worst predictors of an election.Freggles said:
Both Lib Dems and Yes voters probably more active online, volatile and young, etc, meaning over representation and over reasonTheScreamingEagles said:
I said at the time, it felt like the Cleggasm, a modest shift, that just got amplified beyond all recognition.peter_from_putney said:
It really was extraordinary both the speed and extent to which public opinion shifted. Has anyone got close to discovering how or why this happened?TheScreamingEagles said:From the Sunday Times
It was a Sunday Times poll that first signalled the independence threat, and one government minister paused in Westminster last week to tell a member of the paper’s staff: “I think you’ve saved the Union. That poll came just in time.”
It certainly had a galvanising effect, as Westminster’s complacency was shattered and Cameron appeared in danger of presiding over a constitutional disaster that might cost him his political career. One senior Tory visited Lord Chadlington, president of Cameron’s constituency association in Oxfordshire, to tell him that the prime minister “will have to go”.
If so they should put it in a can and sell it the highest bidder in time for GE May 2015.
Plus add in Lord Ashcroft's polling variation about polling about landlines vs mobiles, you can spot a trend.0 -
Haven't a clue, but I've found an account of the case.Carnyx said:
No, missed that one - as I did the latter - many thanks. But I have to ask, did he win?Ninoinoz said:
Even funnier - remember the Yes, Minister episode about Sir Humphrey's mess up in Scotland over an airbase and, ironically, the cover-up to shield Sir Humphrey from a Daily Mail reporter?Carnyx said:
Spot the difference with the edition translated into Jockanese that you put up earlier.TheScreamingEagles said:Poll alert
Mail on Sunday poll shows fury to handouts to Scots
Sky News @SkyNews 31s
MAIL ON SUNDAY FRONT PAGE: "PM warns Ed: Don't sell out England." #skypapers
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ByANbY8IcAAvt2i.jpg
But - as admittedly I have said before - I once read the Mail in Scotland financial pages, having nothing else to hand in a sandwich bar. They included a long article on wills and probate, including intestacy. But it had been copied from the southern edition. As someone with [edit] recent practical experience as an executor of Scots law, I still shudder to think what happened to anyone who took that seriously.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeleton_in_the_Cupboard_(Yes_Minister)
I remember a Dear Deidre column in The Sun where someone asked if it was legal to have a sexual relationship with someone who was a not-that-close non-blood relative. Deidre said it was legal. True, IN ENGLAND.
He was prosecuted, convicted and ended up suing The Sun.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2507&dat=19880722&id=jQ01AAAAIBAJ&sjid=nqULAAAAIBAJ&pg=3341,53342460 -
Anyone seen tonights YG scores has it broke the Crapometer?0
-
To be fair the most likely result as things stand is either a hung parliament or a narrow majority, which isn't really a win at all.Danny565 said:I keep going back and forth. On the one hand, I find it hard to see how they could win with a leader who commands so little public respect, and when the party generally is at very best leaving people unenthused. On the other hand, it's hard to see how a party who haven't won a majority in 22 years and counting could do so when living standards are so terrible, when they've pissed off everyone who isn't a rich, white, middle-aged/old, southern English man, and when the whole party is liable to have a Euro-explosion at any minute. There's a list as long as your arm of why neither party should be able to win.
0 -
No, I think there was a real point when Yes was in the lead.Freggles said:
Both Lib Dems and Yes voters probably more active online, volatile and young, etc, meaning over representation and over reasonTheScreamingEagles said:
I said at the time, it felt like the Cleggasm, a modest shift, that just got amplified beyond all recognition.peter_from_putney said:
It really was extraordinary both the speed and extent to which public opinion shifted. Has anyone got close to discovering how or why this happened?TheScreamingEagles said:From the Sunday Times
It was a Sunday Times poll that first signalled the independence threat, and one government minister paused in Westminster last week to tell a member of the paper’s staff: “I think you’ve saved the Union. That poll came just in time.”
It certainly had a galvanising effect, as Westminster’s complacency was shattered and Cameron appeared in danger of presiding over a constitutional disaster that might cost him his political career. One senior Tory visited Lord Chadlington, president of Cameron’s constituency association in Oxfordshire, to tell him that the prime minister “will have to go”.
If so they should put it in a can and sell it the highest bidder in time for GE May 2015.
Gordon Brown swayed waverers and saved the Union, and David Cameron's job. For now.0 -
A long day's driving (Leeds and back, again) tomorrow coupled with an early start so off to beddy-byes for me. My thanks, all, for a thoroughly enjoyable day's conversation.0
-
Arghhhh - I peruse the thread after being absent for a few hours, make replies to 5 or so posts, and the whole thing disappears when I hit 'post comment'. It's the little things that frustrate.
In no real order, picking up on a few things - people may say now they do not want another referendum for a generation, but we'll see in 5 years if they feel the same way.
English fury may not last as long as it seems, and so mean Scot Nats will succeed next time, particularly if a settlement acceptable to the whole union can be arranged, though that is no easy task admittedly.
Headline looks bad for Mitchell, but seems pretty irrelevant. Multiple officers lied and leaked in order to get him fired, and the police federation followed up with their own lies and misinterpretations to seize that opportunity. Mitchell being a dick hardly matters, and even if it is true he made abusive comments, and that the officer at the heart of current matters was not one of the liars, he was certainly aware of the falsities being bandied about which cost Mitchell his job, and yet although they could have cleared that up in five seconds, it took a year long investigation for it to properly emerge. It should not have taken an official investigation of that length to clear that up.0 -
Thing is, NO political leader commands respect (apart from Brown and Salmond).Danny565 said:
I keep going back and forth. On the one hand, I find it hard to see how they could win with a leader who commands so little public respect, and when the party generally is at very best leaving people unenthused. On the other hand, it's hard to see how a party who haven't won a majority in 22 years and counting could do so when living standards are so terrible, when they've pissed off everyone who isn't a rich, white, middle-aged/old, southern English man, and when the whole party is liable to have a Euro-explosion at any minute. There's a list as long as your arm of why neither party should be able to win.DanSmith said:
Labour cannot win the next election with those numbers.TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov poll
Has Ed Miliband been a strong leader of the Labour Party?
Yes 9% No 55%
Is Ed Miliband up to the job of PM
Yes 20%, No 60% DK 20%
So we'll be back to parties and policies, and which option feels like it has the right answers to the various mini-crises, like lengthening foodbanks or the privatisation of the NHS, that we face.
Cameron can't win on personality. He's not respected, or trusted, or liked enough to make it personal and plaster his MASSIVE FACE all over billboards again.0 -
TSE, Is that all inclusive - or just Labour voters?TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov poll
Has Ed Miliband been a strong leader of the Labour Party?
Yes 9% No 55%
Is Ed Miliband up to the job of PM
Yes 20%, No 60% DK 20%0 -
By the way, in that same poll which shows an overwhelming majority backing EV4EL, only 5% say they think "constitutional reform" should be the top priority.0
-
You missed the obvious.JackW said:
Indeed.
I still don't logically understand that result and I've put it down to a combination of the cussedness of the Watford electorate, a highly effective ballot stuffing operation by the lizard people and Sean Fear and his then Conservative prayer mat.
I made a donation to Richard Harrington's campaign.0 -
All votersSimonStClare said:
TSE, Is that all inclusive - or just Labour voters?TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov poll
Has Ed Miliband been a strong leader of the Labour Party?
Yes 9% No 55%
Is Ed Miliband up to the job of PM
Yes 20%, No 60% DK 20%0 -
For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.0 -
A fair point. I'm not so certain of a Lab majority now, purely because I called the Referendum so poorly (even if 15 or so did so even worse, but some may have the excuse of estimating based on what they wanted to happen, which is not true in my case), but I still lean toward them because the Tories are still widely despised in some areas even if their policies are not, they are more openly divided, Cameron is perceived as weak too, and UKIP hurt them first and most. Labour's troubles about Ed M (who in practical terms might be ok, based on his general caution mixed with occasional populist announcement shows he has a certain amount of canniness), and a lack of enthusiasm about him personally, seem less likely to harm their brand, meaning they should have no problem retaining their heartlands and can pick up enough seats from LD collapses, general 'I am not liking the government (any government) switchers/stay at homers and the UKIP impact, to still come out on top.Danny565 said:
I keep going back and forth. On the one hand, I find it hard to see how they could win with a leader who commands so little public respect, and when the party generally is at very best leaving people unenthused. On the other hand, it's hard to see how a party who haven't won a majority in 22 years and counting could do so when living standards are so terrible, when they've pissed off everyone who isn't a rich, white, middle-aged/old, southern English man, and when the whole party is liable to have a Euro-explosion at any minute. There's a list as long as your arm of why neither party should be able to win.DanSmith said:
Labour cannot win the next election with those numbers.TheScreamingEagles said:YouGov poll
Has Ed Miliband been a strong leader of the Labour Party?
Yes 9% No 55%
Is Ed Miliband up to the job of PM
Yes 20%, No 60% DK 20%
0 -
Foxtrot
"Follow Jacks ARSE, and MCARSE and remember "Ed Miliband will never be prime minister"
Your devotion to Jack's ARSE is touching but it has to be said that his Scottish subsidiary was even outperformed by Panelbase0 -
Hope a quick plug is OK.
For those who like to see informative and vigorous independent political blogging thrive, no matter what your political stripe.
James Kelly is trying to keep his excellent blog about Scottish politics going and looking for small voluntary donations to do so.
I won't link to it, but if you google "James Kelly blog" you'll find it.0 -
The West Lothian Question is very small empirically; best ignored.0
-
Well there's no demand for regional devolution within England, that has been proved at the ballot box.DanSmith said:
Either you devolve powers down to everyone who wants them or you don't. This pick and mix situation we are sleepwalking into is only going to see the UK break within our lifetimes.another_richard said:Pushing for regional devolution would make it worse for Labour, nobody but those who would personally gain wants it.
The issue now is devolution from the UK government to England as a nation.
0 -
He cant get is pedge past the little Englander wing of his party and Tory PBers seem to think Ed will suffer at the polls for not falling for Daves rusehucks67 said:For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.0 -
He could walk on water and face a lashing from some Tories for it, so the key is really seeing how 'top' these top Tories are I guess, to determine how serious it is. Sacked ministers, standard malcontents, or people after his job, alone, minimizes its seriousness.MarkHopkins said:
Huh? They don't want EV4EM?Tykejohnno said:
Nick Sutton ✔ @suttonnick
Sunday Times front page - "Top Tories lash PM over Scotland deal" #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/rlVyB1jE8m
0 -
You can easily tell that the lefties are utterly terrified of EV4EL.
And none can explain why it is fair for Scottish MPs to vote on English only matters given Devo Max.
Pathetic.0 -
hucks67 said:
For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
0 -
The Times VI poll must be a disappointment to the Murdoch stable.
They'd have wanted a Tory lead or draw on the eve of the Labour conference to destabilise it.
That can't have happened which is why we're getting a steady stream of responses to irrelevant supplementaries.0 -
If its 'so small' then there should be no problems with EV4EL.Howard said:The West Lothian Question is very small empirically; best ignored.
simples...
0 -
On topic: Congratulations to David Evershed - being spot-on to two decimal places is going it a bit!
As for my own modest performance: being out by 0.38% on the Yes share and 0.13% on turnout wasn't too shabby for a PB Tory.
Still, I'm several hundred miles away. If only I'd had on-the spot knowledge, like, say, James Kelly...0 -
It's a Gideon too-clever-by-half "Trap", he was probably cackling into his dungeon at his own genius when he came up with it.bigjohnowls said:
He cant get is pedge past the little Englander wing of his party and Tory PBers seem to think Ed will suffer at the polls for not falling for Daves rusehucks67 said:For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
It's a load of bollox, a complete non starter. The Tories and the rightwing Establishment media will drone on about it for a while (expect many threads and comments on PB), no votes will shift, then it will die a quiet death.0 -
*yawn*Slackbladder said:You can easily tell that the lefties are utterly terrified of EV4EL.
And none can explain why it is fair for Scottish MPs to vote on English only matters given Devo Max.
Pathetic.0 -
lol fair play!Richard_Nabavi said:On topic: Congratulations to David Evershed - being spot-on to two decimal places is going it a bit!
As for my own modest performance: being out by 0.38% on the Yes share and 0.13% on turnout wasn't too shabby for a PB Tory.
Still, I'm several hundred miles away. If only I'd had on-the spot knowledge, like, say, James Kelly...0 -
I don't think most people in England are very interested in constitutional issues. It's not something that comes up on the doorstep when canvassing - people care much more about jobs, housing, education, NHS etc etc.DanSmith said:
Either you devolve powers down to everyone who wants them or you don't. This pick and mix situation we are sleepwalking into is only going to see the UK break within our lifetimes.another_richard said:Pushing for regional devolution would make it worse for Labour, nobody but those who would personally gain wants it.
Constitutional change on the UK generally comes about only when one party has a large majority (Parliament Act of 1949, abolition of the metropolitan councils in 1985, devolution and removal of the hereditary peers from the house of lords in the late 90s). Changes attempted by governments without a clear single party majority usually fail (devolution in the 1970s, the coalition's attempts to reform the House of Lords a couple of years ago).
There is no chance whatever of the current government being able to deliver major change, and given that a clear single-party majority after the election seem unlikely the possibility of major change in the next parliament is remote.0 -
The Times:
In a desperate move to secure the Union, David Cameron and Mr Miliband had signed a joint vow on Monday to transfer extensive powers to Holyrood by a set timetable. Less than two hours after the “no” vote, however, the prime minister said that reforms to strip Scottish MPs of voting powers over English issues “must take place in tandem with and at the same pace as the settlement for Scotland”.
Mr Cameron’s move, which caught the Labour leader by surprise, leaves Mr Miliband vulnerable to the charge that he is holding back a constitutional settlement for the UK to keep a party political advantage. The Labour leader said yesterday that he would wait until autumn next year before examining Westminster voting as part of his proposals for a “constitutional convention”.
Massive implications for GE 2015 I fancy.0 -
I got the turnout to 0.59% which I am pretty pleased with but I overstated the Yes vote by a significant margin.
On the previous thread reducing the number of Scottish MPs is absolutely not the answer. Why should Scots have less than an equal say on the UK budget, for example, or whether we are to go to war?
It seems to me that there are 2 problems and the solutions are pretty straight forward.
Firstly, Scots MPs voting on English matters is unacceptable. So they cannot vote on bills that are English only. Simple.
Secondly, we need to ensure that English bills do not affect Scotland indirectly. This means removing the knock on effect of Barnett consequentials. I can see 2 advantages to this from a tory perspective. It will force anyone seeking to increase spending once the envelope has been fixed for the UK as a whole to find equivalent savings. This will knacker Labour. Secondly the perverse incentive of Scottish MPs to vote for higher spending with knock on benefits of their own constituents will be removed.
The consequence of such a change along with devo max is that Scottish MPs will not have much to do. That is a more difficult problem and it may require some sort of dual role between the Parliaments. One possibility is that the Scottish MPs could form a revising chamber for the Scottish Parliament.0 -
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.Slackbladder said:You can easily tell that the lefties are utterly terrified of EV4EL.
And none can explain why it is fair for Scottish MPs to vote on English only matters given Devo Max.
Pathetic.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.0 -
I can't see it on the Sunday Times website, but this source is usually spot on
Britain Elects @britainelects 1m
National Opinion Poll (YouGov):
LAB - 36% (+1)
CON - 31% (-2)
UKIP - 16% (+2)
LDEM - 7% (-1)
GRN - 5% (=)0 -
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.Luckyguy1983 said:hucks67 said:For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.
0 -
Many congratulations to David.0
-
Froth awaySlackbladder said:You can easily tell that the lefties are utterly terrified of EV4EL.
And none can explain why it is fair for Scottish MPs to vote on English only matters given Devo Max.
Pathetic.
0 -
Don't be ridiculous. We have an entirely un-codified constitution. It could be done in a heartbeat.hucks67 said:
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.Luckyguy1983 said:hucks67 said:For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.
0 -
Point proven....0
-
I think plugging is always fine, personally.Hugh said:Hope a quick plug is OK.
For those who like to see informative and vigorous independent political blogging thrive, no matter what your political stripe.
James Kelly is trying to keep his excellent blog about Scottish politics going and looking for small voluntary donations to do so.
I won't link to it, but if you google "James Kelly blog" you'll find it.
I am wondering about Cameron's intentions on this one. He cannot seriously think a settlement that can be agreed by all interested parties can be reached for England within the same timetable as that for Scotland alone, so he must want to delay that timetable, right? Clearly he wants to retain and strengthen the English vote for 2015 and positioning as the champion of the english is a decent enough idea, but he could present his own proposals for that and still press forward with the scottish proposals beforehand, showing Scotland he is doing what he promised while showing the english, welsh and NI that he has plans to improve their powers do if, hint, you reelect him. So I don't see what he gains from tying the English question in with the Scottish answer, politically. In fact, if he delivers for Scotland (or sets up the delivery), his promises on England and the others will have more weight as it will be proof he does what he says.hucks67 said:For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
On the other hand, Miliband can just delay agreeing to anything even in principle until after May 2015, after which he can do what he likes with his majority. Obviously he would not be bound by agreeing a principle before he becomes PM (despite the cries of betrayal when the LDs did it, it turns out parties often change tack, sometimes completely do a 180, after an election. Such is life), but it gives him more wriggle room. He's playing politics with it too.
0 -
Has his budget gone pop?Hugh said:Hope a quick plug is OK.
For those who like to see informative and vigorous independent political blogging thrive, no matter what your political stripe.
James Kelly is trying to keep his excellent blog about Scottish politics going and looking for small voluntary donations to do so.
I won't link to it, but if you google "James Kelly blog" you'll find it.0 -
But that's what devomax is doing.BenM said:Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
How would you "do it right"?0 -
It'll be like the Tory dilemma on Europe - they will seem obsessed with a subject that most voters don't care much about. It's interesting that Farage does not seem to be falling into this trap - his call for a constitutional convention leading to a federal structure is very logical and not a million miles from Labour's position. He obviously realises that droning on about EVEL is going to bore people and lead to Anglo-Scottish antagonism at a time when we should be concentrating on healing the wounds inflicted by the referendum.Hugh said:
It's a Gideon too-clever-by-half "Trap", he was probably cackling into his dungeon at his own genius when he came up with it.bigjohnowls said:
He cant get is pedge past the little Englander wing of his party and Tory PBers seem to think Ed will suffer at the polls for not falling for Daves rusehucks67 said:For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
It's a load of bollox, a complete non starter. The Tories and the rightwing Establishment media will drone on about it for a while (expect many threads and comments on PB), no votes will shift, then it will die a quiet death.0 -
72% ? What was the percentage of people who wanted to ban fox hunting? And the Tories fought tooth and nail about that.SimonStClare said:"72% of English voters think Scottish MPs should no longer have the vote in parliament on issues that affect only England."
WLQ - not quite so irrelevant as some on PB claimed earlier today... "72%", a useful little number for a party calling for EVfEL I'd imagine.
0 -
Not according to parliament legal experts.Luckyguy1983 said:
Don't be ridiculous. We have an entirely un-codified constitution. It could be done in a heartbeat.hucks67 said:
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.Luckyguy1983 said:hucks67 said:For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.0 -
I agree the solution should be carefully considered and done right. In the mean time Scottish MPs shouldn't vote (and sadly that means shouldn't be allowed to vote) on English laws. Simple and undeniable fact.BenM said:
Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.Slackbladder said:You can easily tell that the lefties are utterly terrified of EV4EL.
And none can explain why it is fair for Scottish MPs to vote on English only matters given Devo Max.
Pathetic.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
0 -
Mr Lucky makes me think of another issue that has been kicking around for awhile - is the thinking still that the LDs will formally uncouple from the Coalition at some point, or will they stick with it through to the election period?
Not much business will be done up to May 2015, so they'll probably be plenty free to ramp up the 'differentiation from the Tories' tactic (good luck to them with that), but it has been suggested that they might formally remove themselves from government at some point.
0 -
LOL so despite supplementary questions LAB lead increases.TheScreamingEagles said:I can't see it on the Sunday Times website, but this source is usually spot on
Britain Elects @britainelects 1m
National Opinion Poll (YouGov):
LAB - 36% (+1)
CON - 31% (-2)
UKIP - 16% (+2)
LDEM - 7% (-1)
GRN - 5% (=)
LAB 354 CON 248 LD 21
EICIPM
Backlash for Ed is Crap re EV4EL not materialised yet then?
0 -
Don't see what implications it has for GE2015.peter_from_putney said:The Times:
In a desperate move to secure the Union, David Cameron and Mr Miliband had signed a joint vow on Monday to transfer extensive powers to Holyrood by a set timetable. Less than two hours after the “no” vote, however, the prime minister said that reforms to strip Scottish MPs of voting powers over English issues “must take place in tandem with and at the same pace as the settlement for Scotland”.
Mr Cameron’s move, which caught the Labour leader by surprise, leaves Mr Miliband vulnerable to the charge that he is holding back a constitutional settlement for the UK to keep a party political advantage. The Labour leader said yesterday that he would wait until autumn next year before examining Westminster voting as part of his proposals for a “constitutional convention”.
Massive implications for GE 2015 I fancy.
But yeah, Labour Unleashed The Brown in good faith. Gideon, unfortunately, master strategised the good faith away.
Ed should, of course, had known that Cameron and the Tories are two-faced cynical liars, who will stop at nothing - nothing - to gain Party political advantage. As Nick Clegg learned to his cost over many issues, not least AV and boundary gerrymandering.
Speaking of the Deputy Prime Minister, he supports stripping Scottish MPs of their powers, doesn't he? Doesn't he?
Lol.0 -
Most amusingly, on those figures Labour would retain their majority even if EV4EL was in place.bigjohnowls said:
LOL so despite supplementary questions LAB lead increases.TheScreamingEagles said:I can't see it on the Sunday Times website, but this source is usually spot on
Britain Elects @britainelects 1m
National Opinion Poll (YouGov):
LAB - 36% (+1)
CON - 31% (-2)
UKIP - 16% (+2)
LDEM - 7% (-1)
GRN - 5% (=)
LAB 354 CON 248 LD 21
EICIPM
Backlash for Ed is Crap re EV4EL not materialised yet then?0 -
Carnyx The ballot paper question was for independence or not, ultimately devomax was not on it
HYUFD Herefordshire Young Under Freedom and Democracy sounds good0 -
I was up £127.40 net as a result of Jacks MCARSE. As the last one was 4 weeks prior, I extrapolated from his trend to reach my guess of 44.33% Yes, placing 36th out of 361 entrants in the PB contest.Roger said:Foxtrot
"Follow Jacks ARSE, and MCARSE and remember "Ed Miliband will never be prime minister"
Your devotion to Jack's ARSE is touching but it has to be said that his Scottish subsidiary was even outperformed by Panelbase
How did you do in the prediction contest?0 -
I wouldn't particularly revel in the level of disengagement people have with the political process in this country, that's why we have such low turnouts these days.anothernick said:I don't think most people in England are very interested in constitutional issues. It's not something that comes up on the doorstep when canvassing - people care much more about jobs, housing, education, NHS etc etc.
As we've seen in Scotland, if you frame the debate in the right way people are actually very interested indeed in constitutional issues.Constitutional change on the UK generally comes about only when one party has a large majority (Parliament Act of 1949, abolition of the metropolitan councils in 1985, devolution and removal of the hereditary peers from the house of lords in the late 90s). Changes attempted by governments without a clear single party majority usually fail (devolution in the 1970s, the coalition's attempts to reform the House of Lords a couple of years ago).
Well they are going to have to get the devomax change through somehow despite the above.
There is no chance whatever of the current government being able to deliver major change, and given that a clear single-party majority after the election seem unlikely the possibility of major change in the next parliament is remote.0 -
Was it all nicey nicey with the 'legal experts' for the lower house to remove the voting rights of members of the upper house? I doubt it. Nothing is legal till it's done. It doesn't matter a single jot if some constitution experts get their knickers in a flap over it -this is a non-argument. It's about political will. Ken Clarke (and Cameron) had no interest in solving this problem; so they booted into the long grass. The only reason Cameron is doing it is because his MPs are forcing his hand.hucks67 said:
Not according to parliament legal experts.Luckyguy1983 said:
Don't be ridiculous. We have an entirely un-codified constitution. It could be done in a heartbeat.hucks67 said:
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.Luckyguy1983 said:hucks67 said:For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.
0 -
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.DanSmith said:
But that's what devomax is doing.BenM said:Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
How would you "do it right"?
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
0 -
Nah, the Murdoch YouGov supplementary said that 89% of people agreed that "Ed Miliband probably picks his nose", so the Tories are cruising home.bigjohnowls said:
LOL so despite supplementary questions LAB lead increases.TheScreamingEagles said:I can't see it on the Sunday Times website, but this source is usually spot on
Britain Elects @britainelects 1m
National Opinion Poll (YouGov):
LAB - 36% (+1)
CON - 31% (-2)
UKIP - 16% (+2)
LDEM - 7% (-1)
GRN - 5% (=)
LAB 354 CON 248 LD 21
EICIPM
Backlash for Ed is Crap re EV4EL not materialised yet then?0 -
Not simple at all. A Bill which extends to England and Wales only may make provision, which if it applied to Scotland, would be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. In that case, Scottish MPs would have every right to vote on the Bill, because a similar Bill could not be enacted by the Scottish Parliament, only by the Westminster Parliament. How could this be resolved? The Speaker could be given the power to certify whether such a Bill, if it applied to Scotland, would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. If so, Scottish MPs would be prohibited from voting.DavidL said:Firstly, Scots MPs voting on English matters is unacceptable. So they cannot vote on bills that are English only. Simple.
The problem with this approach, as Dominic Grieve QC MP has observed, is that what is within and outwith the legislative competences of the devolved legislatures is a matter of law which is by no means clear cut. It is perfectly possible that the Speaker, even on the best legal advice, could make a certificate based on an error of law. Legally, this would present no problem, as the certificate would be exempt from challenge by Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689. Nevertheless, it would present a clear problem of legitimacy. What if Scottish MPs had been barred by a Speaker's certificate from voting on a Bill which in fact made provision on matters which in Scotland are reserved? The legislation would stand, but its political legitimacy would be gravely suspect.
The only solution is to create a separate English Parliament with a defined legislative competence, while leaving the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament, and the equal rights of its members intact.0 -
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.BenM said:
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.DanSmith said:
But that's what devomax is doing.BenM said:Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
How would you "do it right"?
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.0 -
They need to do it soon if they're going to do it with any credibility. Otherwise it looks like eating a huge plate of food in a restaurant and then leaving 3 peas and saying 'Too much for me, I couldn't finish that'. Everyone on the table just thinks you're a greedy guts and left the 3 peas as a fig leaf.kle4 said:Mr Lucky makes me think of another issue that has been kicking around for awhile - is the thinking still that the LDs will formally uncouple from the Coalition at some point, or will they stick with it through to the election period?
Not much business will be done up to May 2015, so they'll probably be plenty free to ramp up the 'differentiation from the Tories' tactic (good luck to them with that), but it has been suggested that they might formally remove themselves from government at some point.
And like I said, they're not going to do it over the issue of wanting non-English MPs to have a vote on English only matters. Hardly an election rallying cry.0 -
Article 31.1 "The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened"BenM said:
Oh dear. Article 26 doesn't say that at all.Richard_Tyndall said:
Perhaps you should try and understand Article 26 and the concept of First Safe Country,BenM said:
Like I said, try to understand it.HurstLlama said:
Yup, done that. Now do you want to answer the question?BenM said:
Look up article 31 on UN convention on the Status of Refugees.HurstLlama said:
Umm... in what way did the good doctor not get international law correct?BenM said:
Try to understand some international law before spouting drivel.foxinsoxuk said:
They can safely apply for asylum in any of the countries of the Shengen area. They are illegally entering our country, therefore they are illegal immigrants.BenM said:
Asylum Seekers aren't "illegal" immigrants.Socrates said:With regards to illegal immigrants, can't we do what Australia does? Have a processing centre offshore so they don't disappear into society when human rights law means they have to be let out?
Immediate deportation to an offshore camp would soon put a stop to the camp in Calais.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/StatusOfRefugees.aspx0 -
I thought The Sunday Times jealously guarded their polling numbers until they had been committed to print and sometimes until 6 am.TheScreamingEagles said:I can't see it on the Sunday Times website, but this source is usually spot on
Britain Elects @britainelects 1m
National Opinion Poll (YouGov):
LAB - 36% (+1)
CON - 31% (-2)
UKIP - 16% (+2)
LDEM - 7% (-1)
GRN - 5% (=)
Seemingly no longer.0 -
It seems fairly simple - while on its own it's not the sort of issue that might galvanise a lot of people, once such constitutional matters are not so forefront in peoples' minds, if one party or another can through it and other issues create an impression that the other is not sticking up for England, that could really hurt their chances.Hugh said:
Don't see what implications it has for GE2015.peter_from_putney said:The Times:
In
Massive implications for GE 2015 I fancy.
Just look at how the Tory reputation is so bad in some places that people may support a policy of theirs, until they find out it is a Tory policy - it shows the success of contaminating (or self contaminating) a party's brand, whatever the current facts may or may not be.
I cannot see this issue aiding the Tories in creating that sort of impression against Labour to any great degree - their own brand is too damaged in many areas for the attack to be effective, coming from them - but worth a try I suppose.
Yes indeed, Labour never do anything cynically to maintain or gain political advantage.Hugh said:
Ed should, of course, had known that Cameron and the Tories are two-faced cynical liars, who will stop at nothing - nothing - to gain Party political advantage.peter_from_putney said:The Times:
In a .
.
People can make the argument which party or person is the most guilty of such behaviour, all things are not always equal after all, but seeking craven political advantage is kind of the whole point of political parties (it certainly is not about pursuing an ideology, as the parties leap all around the political spectrum on various issues to seek what is most popular, even if they retain a general leftness or rightness)
0 -
There will be rivers of blood over the lack of, er, something to do with, ermm politicians voting about stuff and stuff.Socrates said:
Have fun telling the English electorate that Scottish powers can indeed be done in time, but English powers will have to be kicked down the road.BenM said:
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.DanSmith said:
But that's what devomax is doing.BenM said:Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
How would you "do it right"?
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.0 -
Sounds easy.Life_ina_market_town said:
Not simple at all. A Bill which extends to England and Wales only may make provision, which if it applied to Scotland, would be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. In that case, Scottish MPs would have every right to vote on the Bill, because a similar Bill could not be enacted by the Scottish Parliament, only by the Westminster Parliament. How could this be resolved? The Speaker could be given the power to certify whether such a Bill, if it applied to Scotland, would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. If so, Scottish MPs would be prohibited from voting.DavidL said:Firstly, Scots MPs voting on English matters is unacceptable. So they cannot vote on bills that are English only. Simple.
The problem with this approach, as Dominic Grieve QC MP has observed, is that what is within and outwith the legislative competences of the devolved legislatures is a matter of law which is by no means clear cut. It is perfectly possible that the Speaker, even on the best legal advice, could make a certificate based on an error of law. Legally, this would present no problem, as the certificate would be exempt from challenge by Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689. Nevertheless, it would present a clear problem of legitimacy. What if Scottish MPs had been barred by a Speaker's certificate from voting on a Bill which in fact made provision on matters which in Scotland are reserved? The legislation would stand, but its political legitimacy would be gravely suspect.
The only solution is to create a separate English Parliament with a defined legislative competence, while leaving the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament, and the equal rights of its members intact.
0 -
It's been a blast tonight. PB Tories at their best:
- too churlish to give Gordon Brown due credit.
- too ignorant of international law to understand the Asylum system.
- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me)
- Supplementaries pored over with undue glee without seeing the wood (poor VI for the Tories) for the trees.
Then the coup de grace - the YouGov VI poll itself.
Hilarious.-1 -
If Labour blocks EV4EL and Labour and Libdems block an EU referendum, Cammo will go into the 2015 GE saying you can have both if you have a Conservative majority. What's not to like?hucks67 said:
They can't do it anyway. Ken Clarke looked in to this and I believe that constitutional experts said that they can only restrict MP participation in committee stage. For any other stage of a bill, all MP's are equal. This is why Cameron is wanting Labour and other parties to agree some form of administrative deal between them.Luckyguy1983 said:hucks67 said:For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
Ed Miliband is not falling for this. Cameron signed up to the Scottish devomax deal and he has to get on with it. Tory backbenchers are not Milibands problem. Miliband has indicated that he is willing to have some form of commission or committee look at how they make changes to reflect devolution and this will take place after May 2015. There is no chance of any changes to the way parliament works before May 2015 with all the other stuff going on and an election campaign period. Cameron is just playing politics.
I don't see why they need to agree. Could Cameron not just simply pass it with the Lib Dems? If the Lib Dems want to break up the Coalition over it, that's fine, but firstly it's not really the note they want to go out on, and secondly it would involve giving up nearly a year's time in Government.
To summarise, it is not possible for the Tories to pass a bill that restricts the rights of Westminsters MP's to vote only on certain issues. Erskine May cannot be updated in this way, as it not constituitionally proper.
0 -
Weird thing to say, I agree there won't be rioting in the street but you end up in a situation where we get referendums wanting to break up the UK, something that Ed thought was so serious he started making rash promises that he might not be able to keep.Hugh said:There will be rivers of blood over the lack of, er, something to do with, ermm politicians voting about stuff and stuff.
0 -
And not a single soul will believe that his argument isn't utterly self serving.BenM said:
Devomax Scotland is building on what is already there.DanSmith said:
But that's what devomax is doing.BenM said:Breathlessly excited partisan Tories like you should read a more sensible grounded Righty - Peter Oborne - today before you tinker with the constitution so brazenly for political advantage.
I want the maximum English autonomy too. But it needs to be done right, with care and above all it needs to be inclusive. This Tory Party, facing electoral defeat, is too reckless.
How would you "do it right"?
Tories need to engage with planet Earth and recognise the English settlement ain't going to be done for 7th may next year.
It absolutely needs to be done.
The Right is yet again calling this wrong. No surprise.
Miliband only needs to state how grave the exercise is (because it is) an urge caution and proper consultation to paint the Tories as reckless, untrustworthy arbiters of what an enduring constitution should look like.
0 -
No, Nigel Farage just realises that a constitutional convention would also inevitably look at voting reform, which would likely end in PR, which benefits UKIP. Cameron doesn't want that because it doesn't benefit the Tories.anothernick said:
It'll be like the Tory dilemma on Europe - they will seem obsessed with a subject that most voters don't care much about. It's interesting that Farage does not seem to be falling into this trap - his call for a constitutional convention leading to a federal structure is very logical and not a million miles from Labour's position. He obviously realises that droning on about EVEL is going to bore people and lead to Anglo-Scottish antagonism at a time when we should be concentrating on healing the wounds inflicted by the referendum.Hugh said:
It's a Gideon too-clever-by-half "Trap", he was probably cackling into his dungeon at his own genius when he came up with it.bigjohnowls said:
He cant get is pedge past the little Englander wing of his party and Tory PBers seem to think Ed will suffer at the polls for not falling for Daves rusehucks67 said:For some reason Cameron believes that Labour should just agree to some deal not to allow its non English MP's to take part in parliamentary business involving purely English matters. Why should they do this ? It is not Labours fault that the Tories don't win seats in Scotland. I bet Welsh Tory MP's currently vote on English matters.
snip.
It's a load of bollox, a complete non starter. The Tories and the rightwing Establishment media will drone on about it for a while (expect many threads and comments on PB), no votes will shift, then it will die a quiet death.
This "seeming obsessed with Europe is a negative" thing is something entirely made up by Europhiles. Every time Cameron has stood up to Europe in a big way, he has seen his poll rating go up. Every time there's an election when Europe is a bigger issue, Eurosceptics do better and Europhiles do worse. The only time talking about Europe is a negative for a politician is when they're supportive of the EU. That's why Labour ran their whole EU campaign without mentioning the EU. The Lib Dems weren't smart enough to do that, campaign as the Party of In and saw their worst ever poll rating. Face it, euroscepticism is popular. So is supporting English powers in England.0 -
What's so bad about English laws being restricted to English MPs? I don't want to hear about the practicalities or the politics, what's your fundamental objection to it?BenM said:- too keen on smashing up the constitution to suit themselves personally now (the electorate will see right through you, believe me)
0
