Interesting snippet on R4 as the presenter put to a spluttering Polly Toynbee that "Ed Miliband is more poorly rated than David Cameron in Scotland".....I wonder if they read PB.com,........
Sigh... the tedious "Labour bought the client state" myth, ignoring the fact that immigrants and benefit recipients are far less likely to vote than the average population. If anyone has a client state it's the Tories with their constant and shameless courting of pensioners.
Would this 'shameless courting' you refer to, be the winter fuel allowances, free bus passes and TV licences for the elderly that Labour introduced?
Free bus passes have been an absolute disaster for rural bus services.
Are you saying that they should therefore be abolished everywhere, or only in those areas where they have been a "disaster"? Certainly in London they are worth £2k-£3k a year. Would you cut them in London, and if so how would you sell that to London's grey power?
I'm not saying that they should be abolished; just that their introduction has been an unmitigated disaster for rural bus services.
I can understand why Londoners with their brilliant public transport system like it. A pensioner living in a remote village who has seen their bus service stop because of it might have a different view. They have a free bus pass but no buses.
Fair enough. BTW one reason I continue to live in London is that I'm epileptic and therefore have no driving licence - my daughter tells me I have the EU to thank for this!
Sigh... the tedious "Labour bought the client state" myth, ignoring the fact that immigrants and benefit recipients are far less likely to vote than the average population. If anyone has a client state it's the Tories with their constant and shameless courting of pensioners.
Would this 'shameless courting' you refer to, be the winter fuel allowances, free bus passes and TV licences for the elderly that Labour introduced?
Free bus passes have been an absolute disaster for rural bus services.
Are you saying that they should therefore be abolished everywhere, or only in those areas where they have been a "disaster"? Certainly in London they are worth £2k-£3k a year. Would you cut them in London, and if so how would you sell that to London's grey power?
I'm not saying that they should be abolished; just that their introduction has been an unmitigated disaster for rural bus services.
I can understand why Londoners with their brilliant public transport system like it. A pensioner living in a remote village who has seen their bus service stop because of it might have a different view. They have a free bus pass but no buses.
Fair enough. BTW one reason I continue to live in London is that I'm epileptic and therefore have no driving licence - my daughter tells me I have the EU to thank for this!
Epilepsy's an awful condition to live with - my sympathies.
The Ed Balls interview on Radio 4 Today this morning was a classic. Well worth a listen.
On the substantive point of Labour's economic policy, it is quite clear what they are trying to do. The Child Benefit announcement is absolutely piddling - all it amounts to is a one-year extension to the current tiny year-on-year reduction of the benefit in real terms (though still an increase in nominal terms). As 'tough decisions' go, that hardly rates 1 out of 10, and by itself it saves tuppence ha'penny per annum. But Labour hope to be able to point to it as evidence that they are going to be responsible - it's a purely symbolic announcement, nothing else.
Of course symbols matter a lot in politics, but the fundamental problem Labour have - which goes back to Gordon Brown's 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts' - is that they are trying to walk a tightrope in the symbolism. A large chunk of their support comes precisely from people who don't want to hear about economic reality, and this sort of announcement - piddling though it is - will not be well received by those supporters. On the other hand, those looking for genuine evidence that the leopard has changed its spots will not be terriblly impressed either. Regaining economic credibility, without scaring off the deficit-deniers who form so much of Labour's core support - is a jolly hard circle to square. In fact it is probably an impossible problem to resolve, which is why I believe they will try to say the absolute minimum possible, accept the fact that they are miles behind on economic credibility, and try to shift the debate on to other subjects (the NHS, gimmicky cost-of-living announcements).
In purely electoral terms, this is probably the best they can do. It might be enough to get the two Eds into Downing Street. Then the problems start, of course, as expectations hit reality.
Possibly. It may also be the case, though, that if austerity is unavoidable people would prefer Labour to be managing it because at least they feel Labour's heart is in the right place.
I'm a unionist and hope we can get an English Parliament. If it's a forced choice of sacrificing the UK or England, I'd sooner lose the UK. Hopefully we won't get to that stage, but given how shockingly badly devolution has been handled so far I'm not holding my breath.
I just don't get how an English parliament will supposedly end the UK. The Scots will be happy for their foreign policy and macroeconomics to be dominated by English votes, but only if they get a say over English education policy? It doesn't make any sense.
rottenborough says -- '' Labour might defuse the Ed problem by promoting Labour as a team'' But then he spoils it by listing Cooper & Flint. Flint! Still it could have been worse he could have mentioned Burnham. Balls is a given I agree.
Lets face it is the Labour team any better? Tristram Hunt? Wee Dougie? Is Harriet Harman going to wade in and solve the child abuse crisis? And then there is her husband. And then there is all the junior Blairs Kinnocks Straws etc. And Mrs Balls with Mrs Miliband getting in on the act. I am well aware that Labour is more than Miliband. Thats why I am voting tory!
Lots of other politicians got a hard time from yes protesters, none of them had to be hustled away from an environment preselected as being "warm, dry and controlled", fleeing - the story suggests - the media as much as the protesters. How on earth is he going to stand up to a GE campaign?
I guess he may have to do what Cameron did in Scotland during the referendum campaign and only attend stage managed events with friendly audiences.
I'd be careful, SO. Some may construe that as a 'visceral hatred' of Cameron.
Possibly. It may also be the case, though, that if austerity is unavoidable people would prefer Labour to be managing it because at least they feel Labour's heart is in the right place.
The Scots will be happy for their foreign policy and macroeconomics to be dominated by English votes, but only if they get a say over English education policy? It doesn't make any sense.
''The Scots will be happy for their foreign policy and macroeconomics to be dominated by English votes, but only if they get a say over English education policy? It doesn't make any sense.''
Oxfordshire get their foreign policy and macroeconomics dominated by Scottish votes. We are all one country. Scotland is happy to build UK warships.
Possibly. It may also be the case, though, that if austerity is unavoidable people would prefer Labour to be managing it because at least they feel Labour's heart is in the right place.
Indeed, which is why I have always maintained that Gordon Brown could have won a majority if he had called an election early in 2009, when he was still benefiting from his bailout-bounce, on a platform of being straight with voters about the economic reality. Instead he took the diametric opposite course, and got Labour into the absurd position of trying to pretend the cuts were all an ideologically-motivated Tory plot.
Trashing the Labour brand shouldn't be that hard. New Labour committed five great acts of deliberate vandalism to our country:
1. They ruined the public finances
2. Multiculti vote buying They deliberately opened the borders in order to bring in Labour voting immigrants. They cared not a jot that this would make jobs and wages very tough for the WWC, that people would start to become strangers in their own town, that incompatible cultures would start to operate states within a state. Rotherham is the legacy of Labour PC mendacity. And anyone who wants to voice their legitimate concern is a 'bigot'. Labour hates England. Damn their thought police.
3. Illegal war A Labour PM lied to Parliament in order to take us to war. The 45 minute dossier was the most egregious example of deliberate lying I can think of in British politics. It astounds that Blair and Campbell have not yet been indicted.
4. Devolution
5. Spin I rate this as worse than all their other crimes. Politics has always been hard fought - but there was some honour among thieves before New Labour. But Blair, Campbell, Brown, Draper, McBride, and all the rest brought to British public life a totally new and shameless political culture. Lying became THE thing. We got government by soundbite, policy by headline, an utterly shameless politicisation of everything from stuffing public bodies with lefty grandees, to political appointees to the police, etc. They ruined the gentle and typically a-political culture of a nation.
So, yes TSE you are tight. Dave needs to monster Labour more than it needs to monster Ed. IT AIN'T GOING TO BE HARD!
Yes - for me the Labour brand is more toxic than Milliband himself whom I find likeable (to the extent that I can determine this) and probably more ruthless than he appears - a necessary quality in a political leader. My reasons for not voting Labour are more to do with Labour's approach to issues - I would add their lurch into authoritarianism as a big no-no from my perspective - than Ed.
I do have time for some Labour people but feel that the current Labour party simply has not thought hard or deeply enough about how to be a social democratic party in our age. (I very much share SO's views in this regard.) As a result it has no coherent answers and has also allowed some very disturbing views to take hold of some parts of it.
Mr. Socrates, indeed. Discriminating against a majority is still discrimination.
All people after an English Parliament want is equality, the same as Scotland has.
In fact, a EVfEL system seems far more likely to end the UK. If you imagine Labour winning the vote UK-wide, and the Tories winning it in England, what's more likely to breed resentment:
a) The UK government that the Scots voted for being crippled politically by constant defeats to a Tory English majority?
b) A Tory government doing it's own thing at the English level and a Labour government working at the UK level?
EV4EL, an English Parliament (and its voting method), even significant further one-way devolution to Scotland, the role of Wales/NI in reforms: these are all constitutional issues every bit as significant as the proposed House of Lords reform.
Can we not put forward a sensible cross-party (maybe 4 x Conservatives, 3 x Labour, 2 x LibDem, 2 x UKIP, plus maybe one other), that puts together a propertly thought-up constitutional reform package up for a referendum next May.
If the Labour Party (or UKIP or the LibDems) wishes to simply say "we voted against it in committee and don't recommend it", then they probably will not have sufficient weight to stop it at referendum on there own. However, the desire to present a united front will probably drive compromise: and nobody will want to be the only people to oppose it.
Sigh... the tedious "Labour bought the client state" myth, ignoring the fact that immigrants and benefit recipients are far less likely to vote than the average population. If anyone has a client state it's the Tories with their constant and shameless courting of pensioners.
Would this 'shameless courting' you refer to, be the winter fuel allowances, free bus passes and TV licences for the elderly that Labour introduced?
Free bus passes have been an absolute disaster for rural bus services.
Are you saying that they should therefore be abolished everywhere, or only in those areas where they have been a "disaster"? Certainly in London they are worth £2k-£3k a year. Would you cut them in London, and if so how would you sell that to London's grey power?
I'm not saying that they should be abolished; just that their introduction has been an unmitigated disaster for rural bus services.
I can understand why Londoners with their brilliant public transport system like it. A pensioner living in a remote village who has seen their bus service stop because of it might have a different view. They have a free bus pass but no buses.
Fair enough. BTW one reason I continue to live in London is that I'm epileptic and therefore have no driving licence - my daughter tells me I have the EU to thank for this!
Epilepsy's an awful condition to live with - my sympathies.
Thanks, JJ. My epilepsy, thank God, is manageable (it doesn't cause fits, only blackouts). To the other poster: of course the EU doesn't cause epilepsy, but did introduce a regulation that no epileptic could drive, a matter previously handled on a case-by-case basis. Whether any of you would want a man who blacks out now and then at the wheel of the car you're in is another question...
Possibly. It may also be the case, though, that if austerity is unavoidable people would prefer Labour to be managing it because at least they feel Labour's heart is in the right place.
Indeed, which is why I have always maintained that Gordon Brown could have won a majority if he had called an election early in 2009, when he was still benefiting from his bailout-bounce, on a platform of being straight with voters about the economic reality. Instead he took the diametric opposite course, and got Labour into the absurd position of trying to pretend the cuts were all an ideologically-motivated Tory plot.
A fair analysis and one of the reasons why Brown lost so many Labour-inclined voters in the run-up to the last GE. My point was more that if Labour do somehow win next year its voters may not be as disappointed as you say with the austerity that will no doubt follow.
How can anyone like Labour? What exactly is likeable about them?
I don't get it.
The ratings for the people who run Labour are always much worse than the ratings for Labour itself, as if the entity is completely detached from the people who run it.
The Fabian Society (@thefabians) 21/09/2014 19:25 Glasman says Blue Labour core insight that Labour disconnected from its people and that is what UKIP is tapping into. #lab14 #fabians
The Ed Balls interview on Radio 4 Today this morning was a classic. Well worth a listen.
On the substantive point of Labour's economic policy, it is quite clear what they are trying to do. The Child Benefit announcement is absolutely piddling - all it amounts to is a one-year extension to the current tiny year-on-year reduction of the benefit in real terms (though still an increase in nominal terms). As 'tough decisions' go, that hardly rates 1 out of 10, and by itself it saves tuppence ha'penny per annum. But Labour hope to be able to point to it as evidence that they are going to be responsible - it's a purely symbolic announcement, nothing else.
Of course symbols matter a lot in politics, but the fundamental problem Labour have - which goes back to Gordon Brown's 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts' - is that they are trying to walk a tightrope in the symbolism. A large chunk of their support comes precisely from people who don't want to hear about economic reality, and this sort of announcement - piddling though it is - will not be well received by those supporters. On the other hand, those looking for genuine evidence that the leopard has changed its spots will not be terriblly impressed either. Regaining economic credibility, without scaring off the deficit-deniers who form so much of Labour's core support - is a jolly hard circle to square. In fact it is probably an impossible problem to resolve, which is why I believe they will try to say the absolute minimum possible, accept the fact that they are miles behind on economic credibility, and try to shift the debate on to other subjects (the NHS, gimmicky cost-of-living announcements).
In purely electoral terms, this is probably the best they can do. It might be enough to get the two Eds into Downing Street. Then the problems start, of course, as expectations hit reality.
Richard, I remain to be convinced that our economy is in worse shape than it was in 1945, when Attlee's government introduced the Welfare State. If you think that it was unaffordable then, fair enough, I suppose.
Lots of other politicians got a hard time from yes protesters, none of them had to be hustled away from an environment preselected as being "warm, dry and controlled", fleeing - the story suggests - the media as much as the protesters. How on earth is he going to stand up to a GE campaign?
I guess he may have to do what Cameron did in Scotland during the referendum campaign and only attend stage managed events with friendly audiences.
I'd be careful, SO. Some may construe that as a 'visceral hatred' of Cameron.
Chortles.
I am sure they would. And as I have said on here many times my principle political position these days is an anti-Tory one. If people want to see that as a dislike of what Cameron stands for I am not that bothered and will not waste time denying it when there are so many more interesting things to talk about.
The tory party philosophy of equality of opportunity, helping others to help themselves and ultimately allowing each of us to suffer more of the consequences of our own mistakes as well as more of the fruits of our successes does, in my opinion, produce a greater measure of happiness as well as a more successful society but to the man in the street it seems harsh, uncaring and too easily slips into protection of existing privilege.
Far too easily, when the party auctions internships to raise funds, and the Education Secretary is moved to comment on the dominance of one school.
Just to say that I am heading by train for sunny Andalusia - a holiday that had to be put back because of the IndyRef. First stop Paris to celebrate my wife's birthday, then Barcelona and then down south. TSE is in the editor's chair
Generally whenever I go to Spain a major political story breaks..
EV4EL, an English Parliament (and its voting method), even significant further one-way devolution to Scotland, the role of Wales/NI in reforms: these are all constitutional issues every bit as significant as the proposed House of Lords reform.
Can we not put forward a sensible cross-party (maybe 4 x Conservatives, 3 x Labour, 2 x LibDem, 2 x UKIP, plus maybe one other), that puts together a propertly thought-up constitutional reform package up for a referendum next May.
If the Labour Party (or UKIP or the LibDems) wishes to simply say "we voted against it in committee and don't recommend it", then they probably will not have sufficient weight to stop it at referendum on there own. However, the desire to present a united front will probably drive compromise: and nobody will want to be the only people to oppose it.
Am I simply being idealistic?
There isn't the time left in this Parliament. A committee could no doubt be established, but whether it would even be able to report by the dissolution is another matter altogether. Its conclusions, if any, would then be overtaken by the results of the general election in May 2015. It might even be argued that there is insufficient parliamentary time to pass primary legislation enabling a referendum on constitutional reform in May 2015, unless plenary powers to set the question and prescribe the campaign rules were given to the Secretary of State.
It should also be noted that the so-called "Vow" given to Scotland in the Daily Record by the three party leaders states that:
[I]t is our hope that the people of Scotland will be engaged directly as each party works to improve the way we are governed in the UK in the years ahead.
Presumably that means the Scots will have a vote in any referendum on constitutional reform in England...
Richard, I remain to be convinced that our economy is in worse shape than it was in 1945, when Attlee's government introduced the Welfare State. If you think that it was unaffordable then, fair enough, I suppose.
I'm sorry, I haven't a clue what you are going on about.
Just to say that I am heading by train for sunny Andalusia - a holiday that had to be put back because of the IndyRef. First stop Paris to celebrate my wife's birthday, then Barcelona and then down south. TSE is in the editor's chair
Generally whenever I go to Spain a major political story breaks..
Safe journey and enjoy your well deserved break OGH - nothing major will happen this time ; )
It's important not have a nervous breakdown over the fact that around 10% of the UK population is to be granted Home Rule. Keep things in proportion; there is no need for massive constitutional upheaval, still less for the invention of yet another tier of government in England. EV4EL will have to come and the government of the day will need to account for that when framing legislation. We may end up will more compromise and consensus and fewer laws overall, which may be a very good thing.
Quite right.
England makes up 85% of the UK population . It would be a nonsense to suggest that the nation that makes up 85% of the UK needs a devolved administration and more representatives. Devolution works when you have small local administrations handed down some powers from the centre like Scotland and Wales. All we need is to prevent Scottish MPs voting on matters reserved as being exclusively English, whilst letting the majority UK government run England.
The telegraph reports that Northern English Tory and Labour MPs have opened a dialogue on EVE4L.
Unlike their leaders, they seem to have noticed that UKIP is on 23%.
My desire isn't to stem UKIP. My desire is to have a robust constitutional settlement that deals principally with the consequences of devolved powers, but maybe also covers the electoral system used for a devolved English parliament (or Grand Committee) and the role, function and method of election for the HoL.
Just to say that I am heading by train for sunny Andalusia - a holiday that had to be put back because of the IndyRef. First stop Paris to celebrate my wife's birthday, then Barcelona and then down south. TSE is in the editor's chair
Generally whenever I go to Spain a major political story breaks..
Just to say that I am heading by train for sunny Andalusia - a holiday that had to be put back because of the IndyRef. First stop Paris to celebrate my wife's birthday, then Barcelona and then down south. TSE is in the editor's chair
Generally whenever I go to Spain a major political story breaks..
Doing some polling in Barcelona while you're there, Mike? Does your wife know it's actually a busman's holiday?
According to the BBC, the Prime Minister has invited Dominic Grieve to his meeting at Chequers on "English votes for English laws". There was me thinking that the incumbent Attorney General was qualified to give the government legal advice on matters of constitutional law. Grieve has of course raised formidable, perhaps even insurmountable objections to "English votes for English laws" without a separate English Parliament. Whether Cameron will be able to grasp the nettle is a different matter.
I'm a unionist and hope we can get an English Parliament. If it's a forced choice of sacrificing the UK or England, I'd sooner lose the UK. Hopefully we won't get to that stage, but given how shockingly badly devolution has been handled so far I'm not holding my breath.
I just don't get how an English parliament will supposedly end the UK. The Scots will be happy for their foreign policy and macroeconomics to be dominated by English votes, but only if they get a say over English education policy? It doesn't make any sense.
I agree that English votes for English laws will more surely end the UK than an English Parliament, so I prefer the latter over the former, but I still think that an English Parliament is likely to lead to the end of the UK.
The principle reason is that the English First Minister in such a scenario will be more powerful than the UK Prime Minister. This will inevitably cause power struggles that will break the UK apart.
If you instead devolve power within England to a level between that of county and country, then you will not create a position that rivals the UK Prime Minister for pre-eminence.
I'm a unionist and hope we can get an English Parliament. If it's a forced choice of sacrificing the UK or England, I'd sooner lose the UK. Hopefully we won't get to that stage, but given how shockingly badly devolution has been handled so far I'm not holding my breath.
I just don't get how an English parliament will supposedly end the UK. The Scots will be happy for their foreign policy and macroeconomics to be dominated by English votes, but only if they get a say over English education policy? It doesn't make any sense.
I agree that English votes for English laws will more surely end the UK than an English Parliament, so I prefer the latter over the former, but I still think that an English Parliament is likely to lead to the end of the UK.
The principle reason is that the English First Minister in such a scenario will be more powerful than the UK Prime Minister. This will inevitably cause power struggles that will break the UK apart.
If you instead devolve power within England to a level between that of county and country, then you will not create a position that rivals the UK Prime Minister for pre-eminence.
What power struggle would ensue? You'll have clearly defined powers between the two levels of government.
The probably with regional powers is that the regional press is far too weak to give politicians the level of scrutiny they need.
Mr. Me, better to lose the union than carve England into shitty regional assemblies.
England is not the possession of today's political pygmies, to be cut into little political fiefdoms to benefit this party or that. It's one land, and has been for over a thousand years.
Devolution can lead to disintegration. We've seen that already with Scotland, which very nearly left the UK. Do we want to foster division, and not merely foster it but institutionalise it within England? That is short-sighted and foolish in the extreme. English devolution must be for all England, not meaningless regional assemblies or slapdash city regions. All England must have a Parliament.
English votes for English laws is a reasonable stopgap.
And if the Scots and Welsh and Northern Irish are so offended at the prospect of England having equal standing and the English having the same rights as the Scottish, they're free to stay, or to leave. I'd sooner lose the UK than England, if it came to it.
I'm a unionist and hope we can get an English Parliament. If it's a forced choice of sacrificing the UK or England, I'd sooner lose the UK. Hopefully we won't get to that stage, but given how shockingly badly devolution has been handled so far I'm not holding my breath.
I just don't get how an English parliament will supposedly end the UK. The Scots will be happy for their foreign policy and macroeconomics to be dominated by English votes, but only if they get a say over English education policy? It doesn't make any sense.
I agree that English votes for English laws will more surely end the UK than an English Parliament, so I prefer the latter over the former, but I still think that an English Parliament is likely to lead to the end of the UK.
The principle reason is that the English First Minister in such a scenario will be more powerful than the UK Prime Minister. This will inevitably cause power struggles that will break the UK apart.
If you instead devolve power within England to a level between that of county and country, then you will not create a position that rivals the UK Prime Minister for pre-eminence.
What power struggle would ensue? You'll have clearly defined powers between the two levels of government.
The probably with regional powers is that the regional press is far too weak to give politicians the level of scrutiny they need.
It will be over money. Taxes and spending. It doesn't matter how clearly you try to delineate the powers at first, the politicians will want to move the boundaries, and it's impossible to clearly resolve them absent complete independence.
The principle reason is that the English First Minister in such a scenario will be more powerful than the UK Prime Minister. This will inevitably cause power struggles that will break the UK apart.
That would not necessarily be the case. The UK Government would retain control over foreign affairs, defence, national security, several areas of public order, asylum and immigration, trade and industry, and a great proportion of social security. The English Government would not run the courts in England and Wales, and perhaps not even the police, the criminal law and prisons. Value added tax and corporation tax among others would be reserved, and a considerable proportion of devolved revenues would be given to the UK Government. One of the central advantages of such a system is that it would stop the UK Government being distracted by responsibility for "schools and hospitals" and enable it to devote its attention to more serious matters.
Lots of other politicians got a hard time from yes protesters, none of them had to be hustled away from an environment preselected as being "warm, dry and controlled", fleeing - the story suggests - the media as much as the protesters. How on earth is he going to stand up to a GE campaign?
I guess he may have to do what Cameron did in Scotland during the referendum campaign and only attend stage managed events with friendly audiences.
I'd be careful, SO. Some may construe that as a 'visceral hatred' of Cameron.
Chortles.
I am sure they would. And as I have said on here many times my principle political position these days is an anti-Tory one. If people want to see that as a dislike of what Cameron stands for I am not that bothered and will not waste time denying it when there are so many more interesting things to talk about.
So you have the same flaw you accused me of having last night, except directed in the opposite direction?
Well, at least you admit it. Perhaps you should be slower when insulting other posters in the future, especially if you share the same flaw ...
There are only 3 choices for all of us.Adjust,collaborate or resist.At times of occupation,resistance is the only possible choice.The UK has become occupied with neo-liberalism and the Bilderberg agenda since 1976 since when the IMF have ruled the UK in concert with the EU,not our democratically-elected politicians.The Communist party of South Africa have isolated the same mistake by the ANC in SA when it accepted the poisonous chalice of an IMF loan.IMF loans don't just come with strings,they demand the best of the nation's rope,made from finest British hemp,and the TROIKA carried on the proud tradition.This is where TTIP steps in and seals the deal between the USA-and The EU so not only has our sovereignty passed to the EU it will now pass to the financial geniuses of Corporate America,Freddy Mac,Fanny Mae,Goldman's Sax,Leeman Bros, their allies in Big Oil,ALEC and the Koch Bros,not forgetting Big Tobacco.The NHS is just waiting to be gobbled up by these bastards.The same neo-cons who run USA will be running us here to.This is an army of occupation. So,I want to see demand a break from these undemocratic forces and an end to neo-liberalism which is why I choose,resist,does Ed?
The UK will still control the budget and the money. England and Scotland would decide how they spend their allocation and could tax / spend more. But they won't be able to BORROW. This is crucial. The UK chancellor would still control the overall direction of tax and spend / borrowing.
Mr. Me, better to lose the union than carve England into shitty regional assemblies.
England is not the possession of today's political pygmies, to be cut into little political fiefdoms to benefit this party or that. It's one land, and has been for over a thousand years.
I and many others feel exactly the same way about the United Kingdom. Which is why we don't want England turned into a little Tory fiefdom.
Mr. Me, better to lose the union than carve England into shitty regional assemblies.
England is not the possession of today's political pygmies, to be cut into little political fiefdoms to benefit this party or that. It's one land, and has been for over a thousand years.
Devolution can lead to disintegration. We've seen that already with Scotland, which very nearly left the UK. Do we want to foster division, and not merely foster it but institutionalise it within England? That is short-sighted and foolish in the extreme. English devolution must be for all England, not meaningless regional assemblies or slapdash city regions. All England must have a Parliament.
English votes for English laws is a reasonable stopgap.
And if the Scots and Welsh and Northern Irish are so offended at the prospect of England having equal standing and the English having the same rights as the Scottish, they're free to stay, or to leave. I'd sooner lose the UK than England, if it came to it.
England is already "divided" into piddling little counties, without it threatening the cohesiveness of the country as a whole.
England can survive a sensible layer of government that creates about ten, roughly Scotland population sized, assemblies.
Socrates is right to worry about the ability of the local press to put the spotlight of scrutiny on this proposed layer of politicians. I don't have an easy answer to that.
Of course symbols matter a lot in politics, but the fundamental problem Labour have - which goes back to Gordon Brown's 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts' - is that they are trying to walk a tightrope in the symbolism. A large chunk of their support comes precisely from people who don't want to hear about economic reality,
Economic "reality" on planet Tory is desperately scrabbling to claim as a success a strategy that caused the worst recovery in 300 years, a double dip recession, £200bn of extra borrowing and 5 years of falling real wages.
There are only 3 choices for all of us.Adjust,collaborate or resist.At times of occupation,resistance is the only possible choice.The UK has become occupied with neo-liberalism and the Bilderberg agenda since 1976 since when the IMF have ruled the UK in concert with the EU,not our democratically-elected politicians.The Communist party of South Africa have isolated the same mistake by the ANC in SA when it accepted the poisonous chalice of an IMF loan.IMF loans don't just come with strings,they demand the best of the nation's rope,made from finest British hemp,and the TROIKA carried on the proud tradition.This is where TTIP steps in and seals the deal between the USA-and The EU so not only has our sovereignty passed to the EU it will now pass to the financial geniuses of Corporate America,Freddy Mac,Fanny Mae,Goldman's Sax,Leeman Bros, their allies in Big Oil,ALEC and the Koch Bros,not forgetting Big Tobacco.The NHS is just waiting to be gobbled up by these bastards.The same neo-cons who run USA will be running us here to.This is an army of occupation. So,I want to see demand a break from these undemocratic forces and an end to neo-liberalism which is why I choose,resist,does Ed?
But the IMF isn't the only possible source of government loans. Anyone who wants to can lend money to the government . Doesn't have to be the IMF, or Americans. So you just need to find another lender, if you want to borrow.
Of course symbols matter a lot in politics, but the fundamental problem Labour have - which goes back to Gordon Brown's 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts' - is that they are trying to walk a tightrope in the symbolism. A large chunk of their support comes precisely from people who don't want to hear about economic reality,
Economic "reality" on planet Tory is desperately claiming as a success a strategy that caused the worst recovery in 300 years, a double dip recession, £200bn of extra borrowing and 5 years of falling real wages.
We didn't have a double dip recession and that borrowing is substantially less than was forecast by the OBR before their strategy was implemented.
The UK will still control the budget and the money. England and Scotland would decide how they spend their allocation and could tax / spend more. But they won't be able to BORROW. This is crucial. The UK chancellor would still control the overall direction of tax and spend / borrowing.
Borrowing powers have already been given to the Scottish Government under the Scotland Act 2012, and a separate Scottish Consolidated Fund has been created. A question of key importance for the future is whether HM Treasury will bail out profligate devolved assemblies if they go bankrupt. The people of England will not stand for it.
Lots of other politicians got a hard time from yes protesters, none of them had to be hustled away from an environment preselected as being "warm, dry and controlled", fleeing - the story suggests - the media as much as the protesters. How on earth is he going to stand up to a GE campaign?
I guess he may have to do what Cameron did in Scotland during the referendum campaign and only attend stage managed events with friendly audiences.
I'd be careful, SO. Some may construe that as a 'visceral hatred' of Cameron.
Chortles.
I am sure they would. And as I have said on here many times my principle political position these days is an anti-Tory one. If people want to see that as a dislike of what Cameron stands for I am not that bothered and will not waste time denying it when there are so many more interesting things to talk about.
So you have the same flaw you accused me of having last night, except directed in the opposite direction?
Well, at least you admit it. Perhaps you should be slower when insulting other posters in the future, especially if you share the same flaw ...
I think the difference between us is that I am happy to accept I have a visceral dislike of Cameron's politics. It no doubt is a flaw, but it is one that I know I have and I try to factor that into my thinking on issues - ie, am I just saying that this is crap because I dislike Cameron and the Tories?
Mr. Me, better to lose the union than carve England into shitty regional assemblies.
England is not the possession of today's political pygmies, to be cut into little political fiefdoms to benefit this party or that. It's one land, and has been for over a thousand years.
Devolution can lead to disintegration. We've seen that already with Scotland, which very nearly left the UK. Do we want to foster division, and not merely foster it but institutionalise it within England? That is short-sighted and foolish in the extreme. English devolution must be for all England, not meaningless regional assemblies or slapdash city regions. All England must have a Parliament.
English votes for English laws is a reasonable stopgap.
And if the Scots and Welsh and Northern Irish are so offended at the prospect of England having equal standing and the English having the same rights as the Scottish, they're free to stay, or to leave. I'd sooner lose the UK than England, if it came to it.
England is already "divided" into piddling little counties, without it threatening the cohesiveness of the country as a whole.
England can survive a sensible layer of government that creates about ten, roughly Scotland population sized, assemblies.
Socrates is right to worry about the ability of the local press to put the spotlight of scrutiny on this proposed layer of politicians. I don't have an easy answer to that.
If you want to have equal population sizes, why Scotland sized? Why not Northern Ireland sized and split Scotland into three different regions?
Mr. Me, not the same thing, and you know it. We're talking about equal devolution with Scotland. Scotland wants DevoMax. England should have had a Parliament long before now, and its absence will become indefensible once Scotland gets yet more powers heaped upon it.
A Yorkshire Parliament would be bloody ridiculous. Regional assemblies/parliaments would institutionalise division and foster perpetual resentment. It's a recipe for the disintegration of England, short-sighted, foolish, completely bloody deranged.
Just consider money. Yorkshire (for example) might complain it gets less spending per head than London, despite being poorer. London might complain it's effectively exporting tax money to poorer regions that don't pull their weight and then (rather than showing gratitude) are constantly begging for more.
If we throw up political walls within England we'll have bickering assemblies very quickly. England's one land. It needs one Parliament. If it's good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.
Mr. Me, better to lose the union than carve England into shitty regional assemblies.
England is not the possession of today's political pygmies, to be cut into little political fiefdoms to benefit this party or that. It's one land, and has been for over a thousand years.
Devolution can lead to disintegration. We've seen that already with Scotland, which very nearly left the UK. Do we want to foster division, and not merely foster it but institutionalise it within England? That is short-sighted and foolish in the extreme. English devolution must be for all England, not meaningless regional assemblies or slapdash city regions. All England must have a Parliament.
English votes for English laws is a reasonable stopgap.
And if the Scots and Welsh and Northern Irish are so offended at the prospect of England having equal standing and the English having the same rights as the Scottish, they're free to stay, or to leave. I'd sooner lose the UK than England, if it came to it.
England is already "divided" into piddling little counties, without it threatening the cohesiveness of the country as a whole.
England can survive a sensible layer of government that creates about ten, roughly Scotland population sized, assemblies.
Socrates is right to worry about the ability of the local press to put the spotlight of scrutiny on this proposed layer of politicians. I don't have an easy answer to that.
I'm note sure regional assemblies are a goer, really. As we've been discussing over the last few days, there isn't regional cohesiveness, especially when compared to counties. For instance an 'Anglian' region would probably include Norwich, Cambridge and possible Northampton, towns and cities that have little culturally or historically in common.
There is a much greater cohesiveness in counties. Just look at Mr Dancer's misguided and futile attempt to big-up the inferior county of Yorkshire, for instance. Or Mr Fox's laughable and derisory attempt to say Leicester should be anything but a fiefdom of Dberyshire (aside from football, obviously).
Many people care about their counties. Few people care about their regions.
How can anyone like Labour? What exactly is likeable about them?
I don't get it.
The ratings for the people who run Labour are always much worse than the ratings for Labour itself, as if the entity is completely detached from the people who run it.
Perhaps it is just that people hate the Tories so much they like Labour by default? Certainly the level of that hatred, irrespective of policy (which people may often like), is irrational, no reason why people's like of a party in general need be rational. I've never understood why people in safe seats for Labour or the Tories who may well see no positive change for them and say they hate the government of their own party as it is in power for decades, still continue to vote for the same party because that's what you do.
Labour's brand is that they are more in tune with the people. I don't think that's true, and they have suffered some setbacks with that with UKIP trying to tap into their lapsed support, but by and large Labour are able to say and do the same things as the Tories but justify them less because people accept that Labour politicians are more in touch, even when they are not. Tories, I guess, are generally seen as more economically competent? So they could be economically illiterate but not have to prove it as much?
I don't have trouble understanding why people might like Labour more than the Tories, based on policies and personalities, that's a subjective choice, but the automatic assumption Labour are 'better' is unfounded, but accepted by wide portions of the population.
Of course symbols matter a lot in politics, but the fundamental problem Labour have - which goes back to Gordon Brown's 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts' - is that they are trying to walk a tightrope in the symbolism. A large chunk of their support comes precisely from people who don't want to hear about economic reality,
Economic "reality" on planet Tory is desperately scrabbling to claim as a success a strategy that caused the worst recovery in 300 years, a double dip recession, £200bn of extra borrowing and 5 years of falling real wages.
According to the BBC, the Prime Minister has invited Dominic Grieve to his meeting at Chequers on "English votes for English laws". There was me thinking that the incumbent Attorney General was qualified to give the government legal advice on matters of constitutional law. Grieve has of course raised formidable, perhaps even insurmountable objections to "English votes for English laws" without a separate English Parliament. Whether Cameron will be able to grasp the nettle is a different matter.
Former AG; former Foreign Secretary; former Welsh Secretary. Presumably either the press release or the BBC sub omitted a line about current incumbents, or Cameron will have a seriously miffed Cabinet.
What it does emphasise that ev4el is not as straightforward as some have insisted.
According to the BBC, the Prime Minister has invited Dominic Grieve to his meeting at Chequers on "English votes for English laws". There was me thinking that the incumbent Attorney General was qualified to give the government legal advice on matters of constitutional law. Grieve has of course raised formidable, perhaps even insurmountable objections to "English votes for English laws" without a separate English Parliament. Whether Cameron will be able to grasp the nettle is a different matter.
Former AG; former Foreign Secretary; former Welsh Secretary. Presumably either the press release or the BBC sub omitted a line about current incumbents, or Cameron will have a seriously miffed Cabinet.
What it does emphasise that ev4el is not as straightforward as some have insisted.
Is there an account of these objections somewhere?
Lots of other politicians got a hard time from yes protesters, none of them had to be hustled away from an environment preselected as being "warm, dry and controlled", fleeing - the story suggests - the media as much as the protesters. How on earth is he going to stand up to a GE campaign?
I guess he may have to do what Cameron did in Scotland during the referendum campaign and only attend stage managed events with friendly audiences.
I'd be careful, SO. Some may construe that as a 'visceral hatred' of Cameron.
Chortles.
I am sure they would. And as I have said on here many times my principle political position these days is an anti-Tory one. If people want to see that as a dislike of what Cameron stands for I am not that bothered and will not waste time denying it when there are so many more interesting things to talk about.
So you have the same flaw you accused me of having last night, except directed in the opposite direction?
Well, at least you admit it. Perhaps you should be slower when insulting other posters in the future, especially if you share the same flaw ...
I think the difference between us is that I am happy to accept I have a visceral dislike of Cameron's politics. It no doubt is a flaw, but it is one that I know I have and I try to factor that into my thinking on issues - ie, am I just saying that this is crap because I dislike Cameron and the Tories?
Heh, and that makes it sound as if I don't factor that into my thinking.
You really are a smearer of the first order, SO.
The sad thing is that we both seem to agree on Miliband's problem: he detect problems well, but his answers to those problems are almost always awful and poorly thought out. I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Miliband personally - on looks, mannerisms etc; only on policy. (I hope!)
Is there any evidence that the people of England actually want the country divided up into regions?
Nope.
This is one reason why there was never any hope of sorting out the question at the same time as the Scottish one. Some few people seem to love the idea of regional assemblies, splitting up the country, because of complexities around EV4EL which are hard to grasp for us non-parliamentary folk, and the potential difficulties with an English Parliament being overly dominant and so on, but for most people it is an issue which looks extremely simple and doesn't require such drastic steps.
By the by, do people think the 'second class of MP' argument Labour are pushing is effective? My immediate reaction is like that of Andrew Neil, ie 'We already have that' due to the devolved powers of the other nations, but maybe it's more reasonable than it sounds at first glance?
If we throw up political walls within England we'll have bickering assemblies very quickly. England's one land. It needs one Parliament. If it's good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.
It's only considered "one land" because of ancient historical boundaries that happen to lump most of the United Kingdom into one of the "nations". Devolution should be based on what is suitable for the local population today, not maps in history textbooks.
Is there any evidence that the people of England actually want the country divided up into regions?
If not then it is a complete non-starter.
No, but there are well-founded suspicions that it's being raised by Labour to derail the process, make it complicated enough to spill beyond the GE, and create red fiefdoms in their heartlands. 'Cos that worked soooo well north o' the border.
Mr. Me, better to lose the union than carve England into shitty regional assemblies.
England is not the possession of today's political pygmies, to be cut into little political fiefdoms to benefit this party or that. It's one land, and has been for over a thousand years.
Devolution can lead to disintegration. We've seen that already with Scotland, which very nearly left the UK. Do we want to foster division, and not merely foster it but institutionalise it within England? That is short-sighted and foolish in the extreme. English devolution must be for all England, not meaningless regional assemblies or slapdash city regions. All England must have a Parliament.
English votes for English laws is a reasonable stopgap.
And if the Scots and Welsh and Northern Irish are so offended at the prospect of England having equal standing and the English having the same rights as the Scottish, they're free to stay, or to leave. I'd sooner lose the UK than England, if it came to it.
England is already "divided" into piddling little counties, without it threatening the cohesiveness of the country as a whole.
England can survive a sensible layer of government that creates about ten, roughly Scotland population sized, assemblies.
Socrates is right to worry about the ability of the local press to put the spotlight of scrutiny on this proposed layer of politicians. I don't have an easy answer to that.
If you want to have equal population sizes, why Scotland sized? Why not Northern Ireland sized and split Scotland into three different regions?
A good point actually. If we are to scale down, it should be to the lowest national scale within the larger nation.
Is there any evidence that the people of England actually want the country divided up into regions?
If not then it is a complete non-starter.
No, but there are well-founded suspicions that it's being raised by Labour to derail the process, make it complicated enough to spill beyond the GE, and create red fiefdoms in their heartlands. 'Cos that worked soooo well north o' the border.
Just as well-founded as the suspicions that the Tories want EV4EL to create a blue fiefdom. As I said over the weekend, it's very easily to select a subset of constituencies and claim they are being treated "unfairly".
I don't understand how anyone likes Ed Miliband in Doncaster. Doncaster is one of the very worse off English towns - A £1 billion investment in a gas turbine generator is to be built there, and Ed Miliband pops up to say he will de carbonise power if he becomes PM in the life time of the next parliament. Surely the Doncaster people have noticed...
Mr. Patrick, that will reduce the deficit by 0.1%. Every little helps. All he needs to do is announce 999 more such measures and the deficit is no more.
Also, 'Balls to freeze' is a headline writer having fun.
I haven't been paying much attention... Wasn't Osborne supposed to have eliminated the deficit by now, rather than just halving it? Wasn't that...erm...Labour's plan?
The govt policy was to eliminate the structural deficit. That's slipped by 2 years because of the Eurocrisis. There is nothing 'secret' about this. The govt were wisely sustaining the economy in the midst of a European economic crisis. http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002037.html#more
Surely Labour were even wiser then, to have planned ahead for it then, as their goal was the more appropriate it seems.
And I thought it has slipped by 3 years now, to 2018? I remember predicting when it was slipped to 2017 it would later be 2018, and then finally 2020. Whoever gets in in 2015 will have an economy that at least feels a bit better in terms a growth, so there will be less pressure to cut right now, so they can likely say they will reach their goal at the end of the next parliament, not part way through.
The first stage solution is easy. Just stop Scottish, Welsh & NI MP's voting on England only matters such as education, NHS & welfare. Why is that hard given the SNP voluntarily don't vote on English matters now. Enact it in parallel to Scottish changes
Then separately do a full on review including House of Lords.
Simple, clean and easy to understand.
If Labour want to change the NHS etc in England, they need to get a majority in England as they have had in the past. If Labour can not see the logic in this, they are even more unfit to govern under Miliband than i thought they were.
I don't understand how anyone likes Ed Miliband in Doncaster. Doncaster is one of the very worse off English towns - A £1 billion investment in a gas turbine generator is to be built there, and Ed Miliband pops up to say he will de carbonise power if he becomes PM in the life time of the next parliament. Surely the Doncaster people have noticed...
I think people have an expectation of how they are supposed to vote. I live in the Tory shires, albeit a poor small town within it, and no-one thinks of voting Labour even if they support their national politics. Either you vote Tory because you like their policies or it's just the natural thing round here, or you vote LD. In other areas like Doncaster I suspect regardless of policies people think that that voting Labour is what you are supposed to do. What else? Only rich southerners vote Tory. (Obviously pockets of exceptions little the nation)
I don't understand how anyone likes Ed Miliband in Doncaster. Doncaster is one of the very worse off English towns - A £1 billion investment in a gas turbine generator is to be built there, and Ed Miliband pops up to say he will de carbonise power if he becomes PM in the life time of the next parliament. Surely the Doncaster people have noticed...
If I was to write a constitution from scratch, I would make it so that any PPC had to have lived in the constituency, or a neighbouring one (*), for five years before the election they were standing in. That way they would have at least some knowledge of the local issues, it would weaken party's abilities to parachute people in, and the MP's might actually care for their constituents. They may also have been involved in local politics for some time.
I think I'm in a minority of one in wanting this, however.
I don't understand how anyone likes Ed Miliband in Doncaster. Doncaster is one of the very worse off English towns - A £1 billion investment in a gas turbine generator is to be built there, and Ed Miliband pops up to say he will de carbonise power if he becomes PM in the life time of the next parliament. Surely the Doncaster people have noticed...
I don't understand how anyone likes Ed Miliband in Doncaster. Doncaster is one of the very worse off English towns - A £1 billion investment in a gas turbine generator is to be built there, and Ed Miliband pops up to say he will de carbonise power if he becomes PM in the life time of the next parliament. Surely the Doncaster people have noticed...
If I was to write a constitution from scratch, I would make it so that any PPC had to have lived in the constituency, or a neighbouring one (*), for five years before the election they were standing in. That way they would have at least some knowledge of the local issues, it would weaken party's abilities to parachute people in, and the MP's might actually care for their constituents. They may also have been involved in local politics for some time.
I think I'm in a minority of one in wanting this, however.
(*) To allow for boundary changes.
No, but I think you and I might be in a minority of two. I suggested much the same idea on here a few years ago and got soundly beaten-up for doing so.
It would be interesting to see a mug shot of Ed Miliband on the train going to Doncaster, and another on the train back to London. I guess the facial expressions would be quite revealing.
I don't understand how anyone likes Ed Miliband in Doncaster. Doncaster is one of the very worse off English towns - A £1 billion investment in a gas turbine generator is to be built there, and Ed Miliband pops up to say he will de carbonise power if he becomes PM in the life time of the next parliament. Surely the Doncaster people have noticed...
If I was to write a constitution from scratch, I would make it so that any PPC had to have lived in the constituency, or a neighbouring one (*), for five years before the election they were standing in. That way they would have at least some knowledge of the local issues, it would weaken party's abilities to parachute people in, and the MP's might actually care for their constituents. They may also have been involved in local politics for some time.
I think I'm in a minority of one in wanting this, however.
(*) To allow for boundary changes.
I might suggest it be for less than five years, so that a PPC need not be chosen essentially immediately after the last election, when you might want some time to consider options. 3 years maybe.
There are restrictions like this for local elections isn't there? You have to live within the area/ or own land within it, or work in it, for 12 months?
One of my arguments for backing No to win was based on the comparative advantages of Change v. Status Quo. During the campaign, the Yes side had the advantage of positive messages and the seduction of the benefits of change. However, at the ballot box itself, the No campaign's messages of risk and the danger of uncertain financial policies were very powerful. We may be seeing something similar in the run-up to GE15. The electorate likes the idea of change from austerity and a stony-faced government of posh, heartless wonks, so it tells pollsters it prefers the prospect of a government of loose money and caring, lefty wonks. When it comes to the vote itself, however, the risks inherent in abandoning the status quo, particularly with regards to jobs and mortgages, start to become more apparent. Plus, the risk of ditching a (according to the polls) likeable, experienced and reasonably competent PM, and replacing him with someone who (according to the polls) is not liked, not experienced and not up to the job, will also weigh on the vote for Labour. The comparisons with 1992 are interesting. A number of my Labour supporting colleagues reversed their voting decision at the polling booth itself, on the basis of fear. Fear that their mortgages and taxes would go up and fear that Neil Kinnock was not up to the job.
Lots of other politicians got a hard time from yes protesters, none of them had to be hustled away from an environment preselected as being "warm, dry and controlled", fleeing - the story suggests - the media as much as the protesters. How on earth is he going to stand up to a GE campaign?
I guess he may have to do what Cameron did in Scotland during the referendum campaign and only attend stage managed events with friendly audiences.
I'd be careful, SO. Some may construe that as a 'visceral hatred' of Cameron.
Chortles.
I am sure they would. And as I have said on here many times my principle political position these days is an anti-Tory one. If people want to see that as a dislike of what Cameron stands for I am not that bothered and will not waste time denying it when there are so many more interesting things to talk about.
So you have the same flaw you accused me of having last night, except directed in the opposite direction?
Well, at least you admit it. Perhaps you should be slower when insulting other posters in the future, especially if you share the same flaw ...
I think the difference between us is that I am happy to accept I have a visceral dislike of Cameron's politics. It no doubt is a flaw, but it is one that I know I have and I try to factor that into my thinking on issues - ie, am I just saying that this is crap because I dislike Cameron and the Tories?
Heh, and that makes it sound as if I don't factor that into my thinking.
You really are a smearer of the first order, SO.
The sad thing is that we both seem to agree on Miliband's problem: he detect problems well, but his answers to those problems are almost always awful and poorly thought out. I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Miliband personally - on looks, mannerisms etc; only on policy. (I hope!)
I am not sure how talking about me equates to smearing you, but there you go.
Is there any evidence that the people of England actually want the country divided up into regions?
If not then it is a complete non-starter.
ComRes last week
Giving more decision making powers on issues such as tax, education and policing to big cities and regions in England and Wales Support-48% Oppose-25% DK-27%
Economic "reality" on planet Tory is desperately scrabbling to claim as a success a strategy that caused the worst recovery in 300 years, a double dip recession, £200bn of extra borrowing and 5 years of falling real wages.
Rocketing average wealth, rocketing car sales, two million extra people at work, falling food prices, falling TV, Council, Fuel and Petrol taxes, 0.5% mortgages, increased job security, inflation busting pension rises.
Is there any evidence that the people of England actually want the country divided up into regions?
If not then it is a complete non-starter.
ComRes last week
Giving more decision making powers on issues such as tax, education and policing to big cities and regions in England and Wales Support-48% Oppose-25% DK-27%
'Give more powers to' is not the same as formally breaking the country up into regions with new assemblies and the like. Of course more people want more powers for their city or council. But if I'm in Somerset and I'm being run by an assembly running all the way to Cornwall, I'd probably complain about that as much as if from Westminster.
The first stage solution is easy. Just stop Scottish, Welsh & NI MP's voting on England only matters such as education, NHS & welfare. Why is that hard given the SNP voluntarily don't vote on English matters now. Enact it in parallel to Scottish changes
Then separately do a full on review including House of Lords.
Simple, clean and easy to understand.
If Labour want to change the NHS etc in England, they need to get a majority in England as they have had in the past. If Labour can not see the logic in this, they are even more unfit to govern under Miliband than i thought they were.
Labour my well see the logic, but will counter with the three main arguments:
1. It is wrong to have two classes of MP
2. It is almost impossible to differentiate a bill that applies to England only
3. Because of the "Barnett Consequentials" all most all bills involve spending and therefore affect all MPs constituents.
Now you may think those arguments are a load of dingoes' kidneys (the SNP manage to voluntarily work out solutions to them all) and Labour's real objection is fear that a future general election may not give them a majority in England. However, they were from memory the arguments they used last time this came up and they worked then.
The first stage solution is easy. Just stop Scottish, Welsh & NI MP's voting on England only matters such as education, NHS & welfare. Why is that hard given the SNP voluntarily don't vote on English matters now. Enact it in parallel to Scottish changes
Then separately do a full on review including House of Lords.
Simple, clean and easy to understand.
If Labour want to change the NHS etc in England, they need to get a majority in England as they have had in the past. If Labour can not see the logic in this, they are even more unfit to govern under Miliband than i thought they were.
Labour my well see the logic, but will counter with the three main arguments:
1. It is wrong to have two classes of MP
2. It is almost impossible to differentiate a bill that applies to England only
3. Because of the "Barnett Consequentials" all most all bills involve spending and therefore affect all MPs constituents.
Now you may think those arguments are a load of dingoes' kidneys (the SNP manage to voluntarily work out solutions to them all) and Labour's real objection is fear that a future general election may not give them a majority in England. However, they were from memory the arguments they used last time this came up and they worked then.
I can see why, and if the issue dies down a little, it will probably be curtailed for the same reasons. 2 is a key one, since it would be extremely easy to add in the smallest provisions in a bill that applies otherwise only to England, to make it affect the others, and so require a UK wide vote.
The UK party that could attract the biggest % of current Labour supporters is the Lib Dems. To achieve that they would have to focus more on attacking Labour's image than the Conservatives. However, the LDs strategy for the past 4 years has been to primarily attack the image of the Conservatives. This has rebounded on the LDs by tarnishing their own image as untrustworthy partners. Meanwhile the LD 2010 voters have stuck with Labour as they see no reason to leave Labour and return to the LDs. If only the LDs understood that they should have spent more time on nurturing the image of coalitions as a good thing. But it is too late as the damage has been done.
How can anyone like Labour? What exactly is likeable about them?
I don't get it.
The ratings for the people who run Labour are always much worse than the ratings for Labour itself, as if the entity is completely detached from the people who run it.
Perhaps it is just that people hate the Tories so much they like Labour by default? Certainly the level of that hatred, irrespective of policy (which people may often like), is irrational, no reason why people's like of a party in general need be rational. I've never understood why people in safe seats for Labour or the Tories who may well see no positive change for them and say they hate the government of their own party as it is in power for decades, still continue to vote for the same party because that's what you do.
Labour's brand is that they are more in tune with the people. I don't think that's true, and they have suffered some setbacks with that with UKIP trying to tap into their lapsed support, but by and large Labour are able to say and do the same things as the Tories but justify them less because people accept that Labour politicians are more in touch, even when they are not. Tories, I guess, are generally seen as more economically competent? So they could be economically illiterate but not have to prove it as much?
I don't have trouble understanding why people might like Labour more than the Tories, based on policies and personalities, that's a subjective choice, but the automatic assumption Labour are 'better' is unfounded, but accepted by wide portions of the population.
Good answer.
My theory is that Labour are far better than the other parties of demonising their opponents whilst promoting their brand. They're also far better at using the media.
The phone hacking scandal is a recent example where the fact that it was done by a Labour supporting paper with full knowledge of the then Labour government was pretty much entirely forgotten. It was pinned pretty much 100% on the Tories by the Labour spin machine. It was actually very impressive.
Until the Tories get a similar spin machine in operation then they are going to have a much worse image than the Labour party.
Of course the BBC having such a large proportion of the news media makes it more difficult for the Tories to do the same.
English votes for English Laws, is a very simple concept, which is why it has resonated so well with 70+% of the electorate, according to the latest poll.
Talk of an English parliament, Regional assemblies and Constitutional reform with added bells and whistles is just a distraction to complicate matters and confuse the electorate.
It certainly won’t be all plain sailing, given the opposition’s objection and time constraints, but EVfEL is achievable within this parliament if the will is there.
Of course symbols matter a lot in politics, but the fundamental problem Labour have - which goes back to Gordon Brown's 'Labour investment vs Tory cuts' - is that they are trying to walk a tightrope in the symbolism. A large chunk of their support comes precisely from people who don't want to hear about economic reality,
Economic "reality" on planet Tory is desperately scrabbling to claim as a success a strategy that caused the worst recovery in 300 years, a double dip recession, £200bn of extra borrowing and 5 years of falling real wages.
Comments
At some juncture the English will lose patience, if they haven't already.
Lets face it is the Labour team any better? Tristram Hunt? Wee Dougie? Is Harriet Harman going to wade in and solve the child abuse crisis? And then there is her husband. And then there is all the junior Blairs Kinnocks Straws etc. And Mrs Balls with Mrs Miliband getting in on the act.
I am well aware that Labour is more than Miliband. Thats why I am voting tory!
Chortles.
All people after an English Parliament want is equality, the same as Scotland has.
Quite. And I bet the Scots don;t want it, either.
''The Scots will be happy for their foreign policy and macroeconomics to be dominated by English votes, but only if they get a say over English education policy? It doesn't make any sense.''
Oxfordshire get their foreign policy and macroeconomics dominated by Scottish votes.
We are all one country. Scotland is happy to build UK warships.
I do have time for some Labour people but feel that the current Labour party simply has not thought hard or deeply enough about how to be a social democratic party in our age. (I very much share SO's views in this regard.) As a result it has no coherent answers and has also allowed some very disturbing views to take hold of some parts of it.
a) The UK government that the Scots voted for being crippled politically by constant defeats to a Tory English majority?
b) A Tory government doing it's own thing at the English level and a Labour government working at the UK level?
EV4EL, an English Parliament (and its voting method), even significant further one-way devolution to Scotland, the role of Wales/NI in reforms: these are all constitutional issues every bit as significant as the proposed House of Lords reform.
Can we not put forward a sensible cross-party (maybe 4 x Conservatives, 3 x Labour, 2 x LibDem, 2 x UKIP, plus maybe one other), that puts together a propertly thought-up constitutional reform package up for a referendum next May.
If the Labour Party (or UKIP or the LibDems) wishes to simply say "we voted against it in committee and don't recommend it", then they probably will not have sufficient weight to stop it at referendum on there own. However, the desire to present a united front will probably drive compromise: and nobody will want to be the only people to oppose it.
Am I simply being idealistic?
Dave tries to keep the lid on the pressure cooker. The telly thinks that rebellions on EVE4L could' dwarf the EU ones.
He is quite close to shattering the tory party.
The telegraph reports that Northern English Tory and Labour MPs have opened a dialogue on EVE4L.
Unlike their leaders, they seem to have noticed that UKIP is on 23%.
I don't get it.
The ratings for the people who run Labour are always much worse than the ratings for Labour itself, as if the entity is completely detached from the people who run it.
21/09/2014 19:25
Glasman says Blue Labour core insight that Labour disconnected from its people and that is what UKIP is tapping into. #lab14 #fabians
Generally whenever I go to Spain a major political story breaks..
Grow up. There is no comparison between the Welfare state in 1945 and now.
It should also be noted that the so-called "Vow" given to Scotland in the Daily Record by the three party leaders states that:Presumably that means the Scots will have a vote in any referendum on constitutional reform in England...
England makes up 85% of the UK population . It would be a nonsense to suggest that the nation that makes up 85% of the UK needs a devolved administration and more representatives. Devolution works when you have small local administrations handed down some powers from the centre like Scotland and Wales. All we need is to prevent Scottish MPs voting on matters reserved as being exclusively English, whilst letting the majority UK government run England.
Ok then there is 'no equivalence'. People on benefits today have a standard of living that many people who were working in 1945 could only dream of.
Some of this is down to technology, (ie mobile phones, TV, internet etc, but the fact remains nevertheless).
Mr. Flashman (deceased), it's my understanding Sturgeon's so likely to get it the bookies just aren't bothering.
Taking money off children to give to empty spaces instead.
The principle reason is that the English First Minister in such a scenario will be more powerful than the UK Prime Minister. This will inevitably cause power struggles that will break the UK apart.
If you instead devolve power within England to a level between that of county and country, then you will not create a position that rivals the UK Prime Minister for pre-eminence.
The probably with regional powers is that the regional press is far too weak to give politicians the level of scrutiny they need.
England is not the possession of today's political pygmies, to be cut into little political fiefdoms to benefit this party or that. It's one land, and has been for over a thousand years.
Devolution can lead to disintegration. We've seen that already with Scotland, which very nearly left the UK. Do we want to foster division, and not merely foster it but institutionalise it within England? That is short-sighted and foolish in the extreme. English devolution must be for all England, not meaningless regional assemblies or slapdash city regions. All England must have a Parliament.
English votes for English laws is a reasonable stopgap.
And if the Scots and Welsh and Northern Irish are so offended at the prospect of England having equal standing and the English having the same rights as the Scottish, they're free to stay, or to leave. I'd sooner lose the UK than England, if it came to it.
Well, at least you admit it. Perhaps you should be slower when insulting other posters in the future, especially if you share the same flaw ...
So,I want to see demand a break from these undemocratic forces and an end to neo-liberalism which is why I choose,resist,does Ed?
I and many others feel exactly the same way about the United Kingdom. Which is why we don't want England turned into a little Tory fiefdom.
England can survive a sensible layer of government that creates about ten, roughly Scotland population sized, assemblies.
Socrates is right to worry about the ability of the local press to put the spotlight of scrutiny on this proposed layer of politicians. I don't have an easy answer to that.
Mr. Fire, I can only assume you're trolling, or the second coming of Coldstone, with a comment like that.
Enjoy the break, and spending your indy winnings!
Economic "reality" on planet Tory is desperately scrabbling to claim as a success a strategy that caused the worst recovery in 300 years, a double dip recession, £200bn of extra borrowing and 5 years of falling real wages.
A Yorkshire Parliament would be bloody ridiculous. Regional assemblies/parliaments would institutionalise division and foster perpetual resentment. It's a recipe for the disintegration of England, short-sighted, foolish, completely bloody deranged.
Just consider money. Yorkshire (for example) might complain it gets less spending per head than London, despite being poorer. London might complain it's effectively exporting tax money to poorer regions that don't pull their weight and then (rather than showing gratitude) are constantly begging for more.
If we throw up political walls within England we'll have bickering assemblies very quickly. England's one land. It needs one Parliament. If it's good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.
There is a much greater cohesiveness in counties. Just look at Mr Dancer's misguided and futile attempt to big-up the inferior county of Yorkshire, for instance. Or Mr Fox's laughable and derisory attempt to say Leicester should be anything but a fiefdom of Dberyshire (aside from football, obviously).
Many people care about their counties. Few people care about their regions.
If not then it is a complete non-starter.
Labour's brand is that they are more in tune with the people. I don't think that's true, and they have suffered some setbacks with that with UKIP trying to tap into their lapsed support, but by and large Labour are able to say and do the same things as the Tories but justify them less because people accept that Labour politicians are more in touch, even when they are not. Tories, I guess, are generally seen as more economically competent? So they could be economically illiterate but not have to prove it as much?
I don't have trouble understanding why people might like Labour more than the Tories, based on policies and personalities, that's a subjective choice, but the automatic assumption Labour are 'better' is unfounded, but accepted by wide portions of the population.
Are you an accountant for Tesco?
What it does emphasise that ev4el is not as straightforward as some have insisted.
You really are a smearer of the first order, SO.
The sad thing is that we both seem to agree on Miliband's problem: he detect problems well, but his answers to those problems are almost always awful and poorly thought out. I'm pretty sure I've never attacked Miliband personally - on looks, mannerisms etc; only on policy. (I hope!)
This is one reason why there was never any hope of sorting out the question at the same time as the Scottish one. Some few people seem to love the idea of regional assemblies, splitting up the country, because of complexities around EV4EL which are hard to grasp for us non-parliamentary folk, and the potential difficulties with an English Parliament being overly dominant and so on, but for most people it is an issue which looks extremely simple and doesn't require such drastic steps.
By the by, do people think the 'second class of MP' argument Labour are pushing is effective? My immediate reaction is like that of Andrew Neil, ie 'We already have that' due to the devolved powers of the other nations, but maybe it's more reasonable than it sounds at first glance?
And I thought it has slipped by 3 years now, to 2018? I remember predicting when it was slipped to 2017 it would later be 2018, and then finally 2020. Whoever gets in in 2015 will have an economy that at least feels a bit better in terms a growth, so there will be less pressure to cut right now, so they can likely say they will reach their goal at the end of the next parliament, not part way through.
Enact it in parallel to Scottish changes
Then separately do a full on review including House of Lords.
Simple, clean and easy to understand.
If Labour want to change the NHS etc in England, they need to get a majority in England as they have had in the past. If Labour can not see the logic in this, they are even more unfit to govern under Miliband than i thought they were.
I think I'm in a minority of one in wanting this, however.
(*) To allow for boundary changes.
There are restrictions like this for local elections isn't there? You have to live within the area/ or own land within it, or work in it, for 12 months?
bl**dy funny. Didn't get to a question-count; approaching double figures surely!
During the campaign, the Yes side had the advantage of positive messages and the seduction of the benefits of change.
However, at the ballot box itself, the No campaign's messages of risk and the danger of uncertain financial policies were very powerful.
We may be seeing something similar in the run-up to GE15. The electorate likes the idea of change from austerity and a stony-faced government of posh, heartless wonks, so it tells pollsters it prefers the prospect of a government of loose money and caring, lefty wonks.
When it comes to the vote itself, however, the risks inherent in abandoning the status quo, particularly with regards to jobs and mortgages, start to become more apparent.
Plus, the risk of ditching a (according to the polls) likeable, experienced and reasonably competent PM, and replacing him with someone who (according to the polls) is not liked, not experienced and not up to the job, will also weigh on the vote for Labour.
The comparisons with 1992 are interesting. A number of my Labour supporting colleagues reversed their voting decision at the polling booth itself, on the basis of fear. Fear that their mortgages and taxes would go up and fear that Neil Kinnock was not up to the job.
Giving more decision making powers on issues such as tax, education and policing to big cities and regions in England and Wales
Support-48%
Oppose-25%
DK-27%
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bx4dBu1CQAA7Ok3.jpg
I reckon they'll fancy their chances.
1. It is wrong to have two classes of MP
2. It is almost impossible to differentiate a bill that applies to England only
3. Because of the "Barnett Consequentials" all most all bills involve spending and therefore affect all MPs constituents.
Now you may think those arguments are a load of dingoes' kidneys (the SNP manage to voluntarily work out solutions to them all) and Labour's real objection is fear that a future general election may not give them a majority in England. However, they were from memory the arguments they used last time this came up and they worked then.
My theory is that Labour are far better than the other parties of demonising their opponents whilst promoting their brand. They're also far better at using the media.
The phone hacking scandal is a recent example where the fact that it was done by a Labour supporting paper with full knowledge of the then Labour government was pretty much entirely forgotten. It was pinned pretty much 100% on the Tories by the Labour spin machine. It was actually very impressive.
Until the Tories get a similar spin machine in operation then they are going to have a much worse image than the Labour party.
Of course the BBC having such a large proportion of the news media makes it more difficult for the Tories to do the same.
Talk of an English parliament, Regional assemblies and Constitutional reform with added bells and whistles is just a distraction to complicate matters and confuse the electorate.
It certainly won’t be all plain sailing, given the opposition’s objection and time constraints, but EVfEL is achievable within this parliament if the will is there.