politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corporeal on constitutional reform
If there’s a consistent tradition in British constitutional reform, it’s a philosophy of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” (and usually to make the fix a patch up of the specific problem, or what Toby Fenwick dubbed an ‘inelegant fudge’). If you wanted to squeeze it into a metaphor (always fun) then it is a long-standing mansion.
Comments
-
TSE - where would I send it to?0
-
Message it to me my via the vanilla messaging service, please.Garethofthevale said:TSE - where would I send it to?
0 -
I found this an interesting sentence in this article.
''With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union.''
I think its a red herring. What it betrays, for me, is a concern. It's a concern that, free of soft left control, England might be dangerously - and extremely annoyingly - successful .
We are already seeing it with Wales. The tories can claim to be running state health and education better than labour. Much better.
Indeed, labour were noticeably almost silent on educashun at their conference. A far, far cry from the blair days.0 -
o/t.
Queen's horse Estimate stripped of Ascot Gold Cup second place.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/horse-racing/29362179
"The five-year-old was one of eight of horses to return a positive test for morphine in July, which has since been traced to a batch of contaminated feed."
Interesting spin on cause.0 -
'With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union.''
Mr. Caporeal has put forward the same line in the threads over the past week or so but has never, in my view, managed to justify it. I had hoped he would have had a go in this article.
Nonetheless, Mr. Caporeal, an interesting piece, thank you.0 -
Re: Choudary.
Earlier this week, it was reported that Choudary said he has no sympathy for Alan Henning, a volunteer aid worker who was captured in Syria.
Choudary is reported to have said: “In the Qaran it is not allowed for you to feel sorry for non Muslims. I don't feel sorry for him.”
Pure filth.0 -
Pure filth.
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
0 -
Sadly it will make little difference.taffys said:Pure filth.
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
The pigs holding Henning hostage, would likely butcher his many supporters given the opportunity.0 -
On my bike ride I was thinking about your betting (?!)TheScreamingEagles said:
Message it to me my via the vanilla messaging service, please.Garethofthevale said:TSE - where would I send it to?
If you cash out every time you back the outsider and they take the lead you are almost certainly costing yourself in the long run
I was an in running football trader for ten years and the value is to back the outsider when they take the lead, as everyone wants to back the comeback
That said, it is obviously up to you how you trade your bets. But if you are going to cash out, you would be far better off laying the side you backed originally on betfair rather than using b365s cash out. You're paying the over round twice at the moment. I'd be astonished if 365 offered a better deal than betfair more than 2 out if 10. The only reason to ever bet with a bookie is if they're offering better than betfair
Personally I'd either hang on to the bet or lay the side back so they are a scratch/break even0 -
Have a look at some of Choudary's tweets @anjemchoudary. They are chilling.TCPoliticalBetting said:Re: Choudary.
Earlier this week, it was reported that Choudary said he has no sympathy for Alan Henning, a volunteer aid worker who was captured in Syria.
Choudary is reported to have said: “In the Qaran it is not allowed for you to feel sorry for non Muslims. I don't feel sorry for him.”
Pure filth.
His profile begins with the words 'I am a Muslim' but that's the very thing he isn't.0 -
The pollyfilla parliament metaphor works for me... It describes the mess that has been allowed by having different degrees of devolution for the national parliaments/assemblies... If Scotland is moving to DevoMuchMore then I can't see an alternative to the devolution of the same powers and functions to English/Welsh/NI legislatures and executives... If any of those legislatures wishes to devolve any of those powers and functions to the regional level is kind of up to them...0
-
We are moving from devolution to something nearer federalism and this does require a different response. The problem with having a fully federal system is that England is just too big and dominant to be just another part of the structure. As there seems little enthusiasm for breaking England up into more bit sized pieces it is inevitable, in my view, that there has to be a Parliament that is a combination of both English and UK Parliament. A separate English Parliament would undoubtedly be the most powerful Parliament in the UK as it would determine how about 90% of the budget would be spent.
So if we are to maintain unity this Parliament needs to be multi purpose with the Scots, the Welsh and the NI having their say when it is UK matters but not otherwise. This doesn't strike me as very difficult but it does need some thought about excluding Barnett consequentials etc.
It also means that Scottish MPs will be bit part players and have far fewer prospects of ministerial promotion. It also has to recognise that the leadership of the UK Parliament is not necessarily going to be the same as the English Parliament. That might be awkward but the size of England is such that it is not likely to happen often.0 -
Not just the Queen's horses that tested positive....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/restaurant-laces-customers-noodles-with-opium-9754739.html0 -
FT reporting another Conservative MP about to defect to UKIP?0
-
I agree that there will be a fudge. The real question is what type of fudge.
Say only English MPs could vote on English schools policy. But, who votes for how much money is to be spent on investments or expenditure?
If it is only English MPs, then who sets the funding for devolved English policy (eg Education, Health, Home, Justice?)? Is that an allocation from the federal budget split up between nations on some sort of formula (Barnett or otherwise)? Is there specific hypothecated taxes for England (eg an element of Income Tax?). Are some taxes Federal and others Nationalised?
A clear federal solution would appear sensible, but is this less of a fudge and more of a complete meal?0 -
Shares in T**** fell sharply as traces of opium found in own label burgers made from horsemeat.Smarmeron said:Not just the Queen's horses that tested positive....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/restaurant-laces-customers-noodles-with-opium-9754739.html
0 -
So was the Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2768798/Ukip-claims-two-Tories-ready-defect-Party-secretary-says-MPs-unveiled-days.htmlScott_P said:FT reporting another Conservative MP about to defect to UKIP?
Could be Chris Kelly or Brian Binley. Possibly tomorrow to neuter the recall of parliament knocking the UKIP conference off the news?0 -
For those looking at the details before they bet, Dr. Bob Spink is back. In fact he is presenting this at the UKIP conference on Saturday morning:
10.20
CAMPAIGN 2015
Dr Bob Spink
The Way to
Westminster
I guess there is a good chance UKIP will select him for his old constituency of Castle Point, one of the constituencies that I'm mentioning for ages as a probable UKIP gain.
Current odds on Ladbrokes CON 2/11, UKIP 7/2.0 -
Corporeal: good article. I think it will be a fudge. I would be happy with devolution to cities and counties, and an English grand committee to review and vote on the detail of bills (I think) but open to being convinced.
Only thing I'm really anti is regional assemblies.0 -
@IsabelHardman: "Are you defecting to Ukip?" I ask Tory MP. "Are you joining the New Statesman?" he replies. Point taken.0
-
I read an account of UKIP's Clacton meeting by Raheem Kassam. UKIP are rather light on the detail of how the people's army might bring about the change people want.0
-
taffys said:
I found this an interesting sentence in this article.
''With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union.''
I think its a red herring. What it betrays, for me, is a concern. It's a concern that, free of soft left control, England might be dangerously - and extremely annoyingly - successful .
We are already seeing it with Wales. The tories can claim to be running state health and education better than labour. Much better.
Indeed, labour were noticeably almost silent on educashun at their conference. A far, far cry from the blair days.
And we all know how educationx3 ended. Hopefully this means the end of the politics by soundbite. But I doubt it.0 -
Didn't Al Qaeda call for the release of Alan Henning?TCPoliticalBetting said:Re: Choudary.
Earlier this week, it was reported that Choudary said he has no sympathy for Alan Henning, a volunteer aid worker who was captured in Syria.
Choudary is reported to have said: “In the Qaran it is not allowed for you to feel sorry for non Muslims. I don't feel sorry for him.”
Pure filth.0 -
Good afternoon, my fellow Englishmen.
"On a grander scale an English parliament to sit alongside the other national bodies has some apparent symmetry to it. But the sheer size and dominance of England within the UK creates the potential for other conflicts. With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union."
Better to destroy the UK than England. This was always going to be a problem, but the cretinous short-sighted clowns that came to power in 1997 couldn't see beyond their little fantasy of a pair of perpetual Celtic fiefdoms.
And it isn't identity politics. Identity politics leads to things like women-only shortlists and treating voters as some sort of mindless mass blocks, with all the left-handed white lesbians voting (and thinking) in a single way, rather than as individuals.
This is about equality, and democratic accountability.
If one parliament is good enough for Scotland, it's good enough for England.0 -
You should be careful with your language. Calling Muslims pigs may have the thought police round your door and the successors to the British Vishinsky rubbing their hands in glee at the prosectuion to come.TheWatcher said:
Sadly it will make little difference.taffys said:Pure filth.
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
The pigs holding Henning hostage, would likely butcher his many supporters given the opportunity.0 -
Yes, I think that's about right.DavidL said:We are moving from devolution to something nearer federalism and this does require a different response. The problem with having a fully federal system is that England is just too big and dominant to be just another part of the structure. As there seems little enthusiasm for breaking England up into more bit sized pieces it is inevitable, in my view, that there has to be a Parliament that is a combination of both English and UK Parliament. A separate English Parliament would undoubtedly be the most powerful Parliament in the UK as it would determine how about 90% of the budget would be spent.
So if we are to maintain unity this Parliament needs to be multi purpose with the Scots, the Welsh and the NI having their say when it is UK matters but not otherwise. This doesn't strike me as very difficult but it does need some thought about excluding Barnett consequentials etc.
It also means that Scottish MPs will be bit part players and have far fewer prospects of ministerial promotion. It also has to recognise that the leadership of the UK Parliament is not necessarily going to be the same as the English Parliament. That might be awkward but the size of England is such that it is not likely to happen often.0 -
0
-
Yes calling Muslims pigs would indeed be poor choice of words. But then ISIL aren't Muslims, at least not Muslims that Muhammed (pbuh) would recognise.Itajai said:
You should be careful with your language. Calling Muslims pigs may have the thought police round your door .TheWatcher said:
Sadly it will make little difference.taffys said:Pure filth.
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
The pigs holding Henning hostage, would likely butcher his many supporters given the opportunity.
It's a bit like saying the Crusaders were Christians. I'm sure they thought they were but, really, they had little in common with their founder's message. Same goes with the lunatics in ISIL.0 -
Stock markets taking an afternoon dive. Just random fluctuations or have I missed something?0
-
This article pre-dates those conversations. To some extent it comes back to how funding would be worked out, and my suspicions about how much influenceHurstLlama said:'With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union.''
Mr. Caporeal has put forward the same line in the threads over the past week or so but has never, in my view, managed to justify it. I had hoped he would have had a go in this article.
Nonetheless, Mr. Caporeal, an interesting piece, thank you.
But this thread was more about what will happen than what should, and the dominance of an English parliament has been raised by opponents of it, so I was trying to reflect that.0 -
The dominance of England is only a problem if we let it be. North West England has far more in common with Scotland than, say, Cornwall so let's not pretend it needs the same policies.
How many other countries have a uniform health, education policy etc. imposed on c.50 million people?0 -
How many other countries have adopted the NHS model?not_on_fire said:The dominance of England is only a problem if we let it be. North West England has far more in common with Scotland than, say, Cornwall so let's not pretend it needs the same policies.
How many other countries have a uniform health, education policy etc. imposed on c.50 million people?
0 -
It would kinda destroy the 'national' health service though wouldn't it.not_on_fire said:The dominance of England is only a problem if we let it be. North West England has far more in common with Scotland than, say, Cornwall so let's not pretend it needs the same policies.
How many other countries have a uniform health, education policy etc. imposed on c.50 million people?
Come to think of it, how many countries have a national health service?0 -
I think it's Apple, they made a bad phone that is too big to fit in your pocket and to thin to remain solid, complete with a bad software update that made their iphones unable to make phone calls.Smarmeron said:Stock markets taking an afternoon dive. Just random fluctuations or have I missed something?
Someone in Apple forgot that the iphones are mobiles phones too.0 -
"On a grander scale an English parliament to sit alongside the other national bodies has some apparent symmetry to it. But the sheer size and dominance of England within the UK creates the potential for other conflicts. With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union."
Once again, the criticism of the English parliament idea is restricted to abstract terms that don't address any practical failure. How would an English executive dealing with health, education and transport "compete" with the UK government setting up financial service regulation, or deciding whether to bomb Syria? How would that be destabilising to the UK over time? Especially compared with a UK government collapsing because of defeats on English-only issues... it's a criticism that makes no sense.0 -
I've argued in favour of Regional devolution rather than an English Parliament for the reason you give - England would be too powerful within the Union. However, the only thing worse than an English Parliament would be English votes for English laws - or a similar fudge - within a UK Parliament. Socrates has explored the reasons for this very clearly.DavidL said:We are moving from devolution to something nearer federalism and this does require a different response. The problem with having a fully federal system is that England is just too big and dominant to be just another part of the structure. As there seems little enthusiasm for breaking England up into more bit sized pieces it is inevitable, in my view, that there has to be a Parliament that is a combination of both English and UK Parliament. A separate English Parliament would undoubtedly be the most powerful Parliament in the UK as it would determine how about 90% of the budget would be spent.
So if we are to maintain unity this Parliament needs to be multi purpose with the Scots, the Welsh and the NI having their say when it is UK matters but not otherwise. This doesn't strike me as very difficult but it does need some thought about excluding Barnett consequentials etc.
It also means that Scottish MPs will be bit part players and have far fewer prospects of ministerial promotion. It also has to recognise that the leadership of the UK Parliament is not necessarily going to be the same as the English Parliament. That might be awkward but the size of England is such that it is not likely to happen often.
However there appears to be no public appetite for English devolution, whether to an English Parliament or to smaller regions.
So the situation we are faced appears to be that:
1. There is growing dissatisfaction with the status quo.
2. There is opposition to the most obvious solution to this problem - English devolution in whatever form - because it involves creating more politicians.
3. The only other proposed solution - English votes for English laws - will create more problems than it solves.
In the absence of a clear way ahead we are likely to end up with some fudge somewhere between the status quo and evfel, and then when that precipitates another constitutional crisis some years down the line there will be another opportunity to create a more durable repair to the constitutional structure.0 -
@jimwaterson: Haven't been able to stand up that rumour about another Tory MP defecting to UKIP so just tweeting this in hope it happens. #journalism
@LadPolitics: Peter Bone shoots straight in as Evens favourite to be next Tory-UKIP defector. http://t.co/tVCldKu462 http://t.co/4cbV2TG8450 -
The scumbags holding Henning and others hostage, have absolutely nothing in common with those peaceful souls pictured in the newspapers, united in their condemnation of his incarceration and the threat towards him. If you think there's a link, that's your problem.Itajai said:
You should be careful with your language. Calling Muslims pigs may have the thought police round your door and the successors to the British Vishinsky rubbing their hands in glee at the prosectuion to come.TheWatcher said:
Sadly it will make little difference.taffys said:Pure filth.
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
The pigs holding Henning hostage, would likely butcher his many supporters given the opportunity.0 -
"They're not Muslims" is the new "wrong kind of communism"0
-
it's a criticism that makes no sense.
That is because it is borne more out of fear than logic. Fear that the tories might be successful.0 -
Mr. Me, and when umpteen powers are shoved towards Scotland and we have Scottish MPs voting endlessly on matters that do not affect their constituents?
Scotland will either get meaningful powers or token ones. If the latter, there'll be probably another referendum. If the former, the English will have policy after policy that doesn't affect Scottish MPs being decided by Scottish MPs. It is possible Labour will be sensible and its MPs from north of the border would follow the SNP model of not voting on such things, but I'll believe that when I see it.0 -
Mentioning Apple, their iPhone 6 is a PR and engineering disaster.
Even Uri Geller is trolling them:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/uri-geller-identifies-the-real-reason-the-iphone-6-bends-2014-09-24
"Why is iPhone 6 prone to bending?
“There are two possible explanations,” Uri Geller, the psychic illusionist famous for bending spoons with his mind, told MarketWatch. “Either the phone is so seriously thin and flimsy that it is bendable with mere physical force, which I cannot believe given the extensive tests Apple would have done. Or — and this is far more plausible — somehow the energy and excitement of the 10 million people who purchased iPhones has awakened their mind powers and caused the phones to bend.”0 -
Good by Vernon Bogdanor http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/24/english-votes-english-laws-absurdity-separatist0
-
So, no National Pay Bargaining, no National Minimum Wage, No National Welfare rates....not_on_fire said:The dominance of England is only a problem if we let it be. North West England has far more in common with Scotland than, say, Cornwall so let's not pretend it needs the same policies.
0 -
How do you know ISIL are not Muslims? We may want to think that but wanting to believe something does not make it true.audreyanne said:
Yes calling Muslims pigs would indeed be poor choice of words. But then ISIL aren't Muslims, at least not Muslims that Muhammed (pbuh) would recognise.Itajai said:
You should be careful with your language. Calling Muslims pigs may have the thought police round your door .TheWatcher said:
Sadly it will make little difference.taffys said:Pure filth.
The Mail has some heartwarming pictures of a meeting at a mosque in Bolton where the locals are campaigning for Henning's release.
The pigs holding Henning hostage, would likely butcher his many supporters given the opportunity.
It's a bit like saying the Crusaders were Christians. I'm sure they thought they were but, really, they had little in common with their founder's message. Same goes with the lunatics in ISIL.
Tom Holland, the historian who has written a biography of Mohammed, has written recently that much of what ISIL is now doing is similar to what happened when Islam first spread in the 7th century. ISIL may well be bad Muslims but that is a very different thing.
And the Crusaders were Christians. They may not be the type of Christians we are or prefer now but it's dangerous to delude ourselves by trying to rewrite the past to avoid uncomfortable questions about our own history or the present
We will better understand the violent side of a strand of Islam and some Muslims and what appears to animate some of them if we understood the violent aspects of parts of Christianity in our own history.
Being religious does not automatically make you good.0 -
They are Muslims, but followers of a radical medieval sect within Islam called Wahhabism. Wherein lies terrorism, suicide bombings, beheadings of infidels, prostitution 'marriages', sharia law, preachers of hate, radicalisation, and basically every aspect of the unnacceptable face of Islam. We need to understand the nature and origins of Wahhabism if we're to combat it's effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement Saying 'it's all of them' is as deep a misunderstanding as saying they're all angels.0
-
I support the idea of an English parliament but there is certainly potential for conflict - especially as the English parliament is almost certainly going to be elected at a different time to the Westminster one. There may be issues over spending, tax, even foreign policy - with the English parliament, representing 85% of the UK population, criticising what the Westminster parliament decides.Socrates said:"On a grander scale an English parliament to sit alongside the other national bodies has some apparent symmetry to it. But the sheer size and dominance of England within the UK creates the potential for other conflicts. With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union."
Once again, the criticism of the English parliament idea is restricted to abstract terms that don't address any practical failure. How would an English executive dealing with health, education and transport "compete" with the UK government setting up financial service regulation, or deciding whether to bomb Syria? How would that be destabilising to the UK over time? Especially compared with a UK government collapsing because of defeats on English-only issues... it's a criticism that makes no sense.
Think of it this way: the Tories win a Westminster election; two years later they are deeply unpopular and the English parliamentary elections are held and Labour wins on a mandate that it will speak for England against Westminster. When a body representing 50 million people does that, it is going to be pretty powerful and potentially destabilising.
Perhaps this is yet another reason why PR might be the best solution for an English parliament? Alternatively, a federal UK might need to develop a completely new UK-wide legislative body to replace our current Westminster parliament.
0 -
As I said last week
Currently we have a House of Commons which creates laws and a House of Lords that sanity checks them. The plan is to reform the Commons without any thought on anything else when we can use the logic already in Parliament to resolve a lot more.
What I would suggest is to create 4 "country" governments (NI Assembly, Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, (House of Commons/ English Parliament) all of whom have similar powers. All laws created there go to the (House of Lords / National Parliament) to be sanity checked in the same way that the House of Lords sanity checks laws started in the House of Commons.
Then we do the same in reverse and reform the House of Lords to be a national parliament populated by means unspecified. This is would be where whole United Kingdom Law would be initiated and created before going to the "country" parliaments to be sanity checked. It would also be where the whole Government departments report to (Defence, Foreign…).
By doing the above we will end up with an English Parliament doing its tasks correctly and a national parliament that would actually have to listen to all 4 countries as laws were passed.0 -
Wouldn't be too surprised if there is another UKIP defection. After the NO vote in Scotland, no doubt some feel robbed of their chance to kick out Cameron, so they will have to go to Plan B....0
-
But an English parliament RESTRICTS English dominance, because it moves all the contentious English issues down to a lower level, so UK governments aren't politically affected by them.corporeal said:
This article pre-dates those conversations. To some extent it comes back to how funding would be worked out, and my suspicions about how much influenceHurstLlama said:'With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union.''
Mr. Caporeal has put forward the same line in the threads over the past week or so but has never, in my view, managed to justify it. I had hoped he would have had a go in this article.
Nonetheless, Mr. Caporeal, an interesting piece, thank you.
But this thread was more about what will happen than what should, and the dominance of an English parliament has been raised by opponents of it, so I was trying to reflect that.0 -
Wahhabism developed in the 18th century. Its founder thought he was going back to the essence of Islam. Whether that's so I wouldn't know. But its roots lie in an Islamic reaction to some of the changes which animated the world in the 18th century.Luckyguy1983 said:They are Muslims, but followers of a radical medieval sect within Islam called Wahhabism. Wherein lies terrorism, suicide bombings, beheadings of infidels, prostitution 'marriages', sharia law, preachers of hate, radicalisation, and basically every aspect of the unnacceptable face of Islam. We need to understand the nature and origins of Wahhabism if we're to combat it's effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement Saying 'it's all of them' is as deep a misunderstanding as saying they're all angels.
0 -
Leave everything until after the election and have a constitutional convention chaired by Vernon Bognador-Tories can hardly complain at Cameron's old tutor,and him a star pupil.Simples.0
-
Perhaps this is yet another reason why PR might be the best solution for an English parliament?
That's a strong point, Mr Observer, but isn;t that exactly what the Americans do every two years anyway? Elect a blue president and a red legislature, or the other way around?0 -
Dollar strengthening?Smarmeron said:Stock markets taking an afternoon dive. Just random fluctuations or have I missed something?
0 -
Just had a chance to watch the speech from Harry Leslie Smith to Labour conference. Very moving stuff, surely that's the making of a Party Political Broadcast for 2015? If Labour make the NHS No.1 or No.2 issue of the campaign they'll win convincingly.0
-
Judging by the current polls in Scotland, my guess is that Labour's resistance will mellow from May 2015 onwards.volcanopete said:Leave everything until after the election and have a constitutional convention chaired by Vernon Bognador-Tories can hardly complain at Cameron's old tutor,and him a star pupil.Simples.
0 -
Miss Cyclefree, you're entirely correct.
Mr. Dadge, Bogdanor is wrong. He does correctly highlight some problems, and is right to see regionalisation is the infernal proposal of Satan-worshippers (I paraphrase), but his proposal of 'localities' (presumably local councils and the like) is inherently flawed.
How could such small areas have powers commensurate with the Scottish Parliament? Would we have health and education and tax-raising powers devolved to so small a scale?
If yes, we would have a deranged patchwork, a mosaic of intricate madness and bureaucratic bondage. It'd be completely bloody bonkers.
If no, then what he's arguing is that England's size means we should be given half a Twix whilst Scotland enjoys a five course feast.
He also claims the constitution is not a political possession (fair enough) but then argues England alone should be deprived of real devolution.0 -
Mark Carney has said that interest rates may go up soonrottenborough said:
Dollar strengthening?Smarmeron said:Stock markets taking an afternoon dive. Just random fluctuations or have I missed something?
0 -
Yes, the criticism that an English parliament would be 'too powerful' is really just a fear that the UK Prime Minister would not be powerful enough. It's an understandable small-c conservative reaction because it would be a big shift from what we are used to but doesn't have much substance. A well designed federal system would be strong enough to cope with an asymmetry in the size of its constituent parts.Socrates said:"On a grander scale an English parliament to sit alongside the other national bodies has some apparent symmetry to it. But the sheer size and dominance of England within the UK creates the potential for other conflicts. With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union."
Once again, the criticism of the English parliament idea is restricted to abstract terms that don't address any practical failure. How would an English executive dealing with health, education and transport "compete" with the UK government setting up financial service regulation, or deciding whether to bomb Syria? How would that be destabilising to the UK over time? Especially compared with a UK government collapsing because of defeats on English-only issues... it's a criticism that makes no sense.0 -
The tax-and-spending issues could be worked out when we work out devomax for Scotland. We simply decide that the UK has e.g. income tax levels of 15% and 30% and gets to keep that money, and then it's for devolved administrations to charge whatever income tax it wants on top of that for their own spending. There's no reason why there needs to be any bigger tussle for powers between the English parliament and the UK parliament within England than the Scottish parliament and the UK parliament within Scotland. As for foreign policy, if the English First Minister wants to criticise the UK government's foreign policy, she's quite welcome to: it would just be the equivalent of any former PM or big politician speaking about something outside their remit. ie. interesting news, but not definitive.SouthamObserver said:
I support the idea of an English parliament but there is certainly potential for conflict - especially as the English parliament is almost certainly going to be elected at a different time to the Westminster one. There may be issues over spending, tax, even foreign policy - with the English parliament, representing 85% of the UK population, criticising what the Westminster parliament decides.Socrates said:"On a grander scale an English parliament to sit alongside the other national bodies has some apparent symmetry to it. But the sheer size and dominance of England within the UK creates the potential for other conflicts. With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union."
Once again, the criticism of the English parliament idea is restricted to abstract terms that don't address any practical failure. How would an English executive dealing with health, education and transport "compete" with the UK government setting up financial service regulation, or deciding whether to bomb Syria? How would that be destabilising to the UK over time? Especially compared with a UK government collapsing because of defeats on English-only issues... it's a criticism that makes no sense.
Think of it this way: the Tories win a Westminster election; two years later they are deeply unpopular and the English parliamentary elections are held and Labour wins on a mandate that it will speak for England against Westminster. When a body representing 50 million people does that, it is going to be pretty powerful and potentially destabilising.
Perhaps this is yet another reason why PR might be the best solution for an English parliament? Alternatively, a federal UK might need to develop a completely new UK-wide legislative body to replace our current Westminster parliament.
0 -
as much as I respect Bogdanor he's not making much sense there.Dadge said:
Arguments like:
'David Cameron proposes English votes for English laws. This has been Conservative policy since Scotland voted for devolution. It was not Conservative policy when Northern Ireland enjoyed devolution, between 1922 and 1972, and Northern Ireland MPs – predominantly unionist – deprived Labour of working majorities in 1950-1 and 1964-6. Indeed, in 1965 the Conservative shadow home secretary, Peter Thorneycroft, insisted on the principle that “every member of the House of Commons is equal to every other member of the House of Commons”.'
Make no sense whatsoever. Firstly, no party is controlled by it's past. Policies can change over time, indeed they have to. Are labour controlled by clause 4, or the tories by section 28? Of course not. Indeed as (Keynes? ) someone said, 'when the facts change, I change my position'. This is the age of Scottish devolution, and the NI settlement.
And indeed, yes, parties might become deadlocked...that's the point! They have to learn to compromise and work with the new system. But it has to be the will of the English people.
0 -
Also, the issues left to a UK parliament would be the really big, meaty stuff: economics, foreign policy, defence etc. It might be good to have the really big bold thinkers on this separate from the people who have to worry about fly-tipping in the local park.williamglenn said:
Yes, the criticism that an English parliament would be 'too powerful' is really just a fear that the UK Prime Minister would not be powerful enough. It's an understandable small-c conservative reaction because it would be a big shift from what we are used to but doesn't have much substance. A well designed federal system would be strong enough to cope with an asymmetry in the size of its constituent parts.Socrates said:"On a grander scale an English parliament to sit alongside the other national bodies has some apparent symmetry to it. But the sheer size and dominance of England within the UK creates the potential for other conflicts. With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union."
Once again, the criticism of the English parliament idea is restricted to abstract terms that don't address any practical failure. How would an English executive dealing with health, education and transport "compete" with the UK government setting up financial service regulation, or deciding whether to bomb Syria? How would that be destabilising to the UK over time? Especially compared with a UK government collapsing because of defeats on English-only issues... it's a criticism that makes no sense.0 -
Mustn't forget NI.
Off topic.Legal challenge delays gambling changes.
http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/government-delays-introduction-of-new-gambling-regime/1724772/#newsArchiveTabs=last7DaysNews0 -
Was it only a just over year ago that Cameron wanted to bomb Syria to destabilise Assad? The twists and turns are Orwellian, but I do wonder about how good the political intelligence was at the time about the nature of the opposition.
But then who would have thought that Cameron would have been meeting an Iranian President face to face.0 -
Well, if people in England don't like that it will presumably create a political crisis.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Me, and when umpteen powers are shoved towards Scotland and we have Scottish MPs voting endlessly on matters that do not affect their constituents?
Where did I say that I thought the status quo was just fine and dandy?0 -
It's not medieval: it was formed in the 18th Century. Wahhabism is the equivalent of Lutheranism, reforming the religion to focus primarily on scripture and chucking out all the stuff about a priestly/clerical elite making decisions.Luckyguy1983 said:They are Muslims, but followers of a radical medieval sect within Islam called Wahhabism. Wherein lies terrorism, suicide bombings, beheadings of infidels, prostitution 'marriages', sharia law, preachers of hate, radicalisation, and basically every aspect of the unnacceptable face of Islam. We need to understand the nature and origins of Wahhabism if we're to combat it's effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement Saying 'it's all of them' is as deep a misunderstanding as saying they're all angels.
0 -
Unless someone else decides to mention the Welsh NHS anytime Labour starts to discuss the NHS...AllyPally_Rob said:Just had a chance to watch the speech from Harry Leslie Smith to Labour conference. Very moving stuff, surely that's the making of a Party Political Broadcast for 2015? If Labour make the NHS No.1 or No.2 issue of the campaign they'll win convincingly.
0 -
From personal experience, whilst parts of it are second to none, a lot of the NHS is complete rubbish. Totally unfit for purpose. Throw as much money as you like at it, but you'll never change the attitude of some of the people it employs, and therein lies a large problem.AllyPally_Rob said:Just had a chance to watch the speech from Harry Leslie Smith to Labour conference. Very moving stuff, surely that's the making of a Party Political Broadcast for 2015? If Labour make the NHS No.1 or No.2 issue of the campaign they'll win convincingly.
How much longer do you think Miliband can ignore the issues of the Deficit and Immigration for?0 -
Who died and made Vernon Bognador god ?
Something less than perfect (EVEL) is better than something ridiculous (WLQ)
0 -
Dr. Spyn, back then the FSA was stronger. If bombing had gone ahead and Assad had been toppled we might have a 'good' Syrian government to support.
Or ISIS might run practically the whole country. It'd be either a great victory or terrible mistake by Cameron.
Mr. Me, if I saw my dog running towards a barbed wire fence I'd call him back instead of thinking "Gosh, that'll hurt. I shall have to call the vet." Better to foresee and avert a crisis than await it. Problems are most easily solved when earliest diagnosed (cf the eurozone and Scottish devolution).0 -
It is only a couple of years since we were told an elected House of Lords was out of the question because it would undermine the Commons.0
-
In a way the simplest outcome is for ALL Scottish MPs to refrain voluntarily from voting on English matters. They then retain full representation in parliament for non-devolved matters such as tomorrow's vote and we avoid the expense of additional tiers of government etc.0
-
@TheEconomist: Ed Miliband flunks one of his last opportunities to look like a worthy prime minister http://t.co/geRu2j7m8S http://t.co/0rhAoSn0Qm0
-
Tories, not to mention UKIP, can certainly complain about an anti-English europhile screwing over our country...volcanopete said:Leave everything until after the election and have a constitutional convention chaired by Vernon Bognador-Tories can hardly complain at Cameron's old tutor,and him a star pupil.Simples.
0 -
Holobone at 10/1 looks alrightScott_P said:@jimwaterson: Haven't been able to stand up that rumour about another Tory MP defecting to UKIP so just tweeting this in hope it happens. #journalism
@LadPolitics: Peter Bone shoots straight in as Evens favourite to be next Tory-UKIP defector. http://t.co/tVCldKu462 http://t.co/4cbV2TG845
Chris Kelly not quoted?0 -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29330744
ABS - would Jack Dromey still get in ?
"Ed Miliband is facing demands to impose "all black" shortlists for the selection of Labour candidates in certain constituencies."0 -
Well, yes, of course, that would be very sensible.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Me, if I saw my dog running towards a barbed wire fence I'd call him back instead of thinking "Gosh, that'll hurt. I shall have to call the vet." Better to foresee and avert a crisis than await it. Problems are most easily solved when earliest diagnosed (cf the eurozone and Scottish devolution).
Unfortunately people are not always sensible, and dogs do not always listen to calls. Whatever the desirability of English devolution from a theoretical point of view in fixing the UK constitution, I do not think that English voters are that keen on creating new politicians.
In the absence of a politician willing to court the public unpopularity that would follow from creating more professional politicians, this leaves us with the status quo or EvfEl - neither of which will prove to be a stable outcome.
I'm not happy about it, but it's how I see things.0 -
Speccie article - makes an interesting point - the threat of a YES vote got more powers for Scotland.
Surely if an EU referendum was looking like YES (to exit) - then similar concessions could be won - and only in that scenario.
Time to copy the Nats and call the EU's bluff ?0 -
Mr. Flashman (deceased), I wonder if there will be all Asian and all Chinese shortlists.
Discrimination against the majority is still discrimination. The idea of 'good' racism is intellectually indefensible. Does Miliband have the intellectual self-confidence to judge people by the content of their character and not the colour of their skin?0 -
Just as everything they do turns into a catastrophe, there are two points that will absolutely kill the Labour NHS camapign stone dead:AllyPally_Rob said:Just had a chance to watch the speech from Harry Leslie Smith to Labour conference. Very moving stuff, surely that's the making of a Party Political Broadcast for 2015? If Labour make the NHS No.1 or No.2 issue of the campaign they'll win convincingly.
1. Wales
2. Mid-Staffs
There, that was easy.0 -
I think that EVEL << WLQTGOHF said:Who died and made Vernon Bognador god ?
Something less than perfect (EVEL) is better than something ridiculous (WLQ)
Not that I dispute the ridiculousness of the WLQ. An English Parliament would be far better than both, if not quite reaching the heights of perfection represented by re-establishing the Heptarchy...0 -
I think it would also make it harder for people to follow the professional politician career path from SPAD to safe seat to national power. Having an English tier of government would enhance the pool of people with real executive experience and ultimately lead to more diversity at the national level.Socrates said:
Also, the issues left to a UK parliament would be the really big, meaty stuff: economics, foreign policy, defence etc. It might be good to have the really big bold thinkers on this separate from the people who have to worry about fly-tipping in the local park.williamglenn said:
Yes, the criticism that an English parliament would be 'too powerful' is really just a fear that the UK Prime Minister would not be powerful enough. It's an understandable small-c conservative reaction because it would be a big shift from what we are used to but doesn't have much substance. A well designed federal system would be strong enough to cope with an asymmetry in the size of its constituent parts.Socrates said:"On a grander scale an English parliament to sit alongside the other national bodies has some apparent symmetry to it. But the sheer size and dominance of England within the UK creates the potential for other conflicts. With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union."
Once again, the criticism of the English parliament idea is restricted to abstract terms that don't address any practical failure. How would an English executive dealing with health, education and transport "compete" with the UK government setting up financial service regulation, or deciding whether to bomb Syria? How would that be destabilising to the UK over time? Especially compared with a UK government collapsing because of defeats on English-only issues... it's a criticism that makes no sense.0 -
Mr. England, Wales NHS stuff will hinder Labour in Wales but, sadly, I do not think the disgrace of Staffordshire will actually harm Labour in any significant way in England.
Mr. Me, I believe you're wrong. An English Parliament is, I believe, the most desirable (and desired) solution to the West Lothian Question.
Anyway, we shall see how events unfold.0 -
What about EVEL in the interim - with Scottish MPs taking a gentleman's agreement not to vote ?OblitusSumMe said:
I think that EVEL << WLQTGOHF said:Who died and made Vernon Bognador god ?
Something less than perfect (EVEL) is better than something ridiculous (WLQ)
Not that I dispute the ridiculousness of the WLQ. An English Parliament would be far better than both, if not quite reaching the heights of perfection represented by re-establishing the Heptarchy...</p>
0 -
Mrs Free, the Wahhabist sect followers remind me of the fundamentalist Christians of the the 17th century and, in lesser numbers, through to the near present day, (there was a strict Baptist Chapel in Hurstpiepoint until very recently - had about 4 members). Those strict sects though fell off because they didn't match the peoples' experience of life and, most importantly, they couldn't raise the funds to keep them going.Cyclefree said:
Wahhabism developed in the 18th century. Its founder thought he was going back to the essence of Islam. Whether that's so I wouldn't know. But its roots lie in an Islamic reaction to some of the changes which animated the world in the 18th century.Luckyguy1983 said:They are Muslims, but followers of a radical medieval sect within Islam called Wahhabism. Wherein lies terrorism, suicide bombings, beheadings of infidels, prostitution 'marriages', sharia law, preachers of hate, radicalisation, and basically every aspect of the unnacceptable face of Islam. We need to understand the nature and origins of Wahhabism if we're to combat it's effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement Saying 'it's all of them' is as deep a misunderstanding as saying they're all angels.
So how can the Wahhabi sect continue to cause such problems for all in the 21st century? Simples - money from Saudi Arabia. Turn that off and Wahhabism (and thus a great deal of terrorism) will go away, quite quickly. However that would mean upsetting the Saudi Royal Family and we are not allowed to do that.0 -
#onenationTGOHF said:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29330744
ABS - would Jack Dromey still get in ?
"Ed Miliband is facing demands to impose "all black" shortlists for the selection of Labour candidates in certain constituencies."0 -
The cost of an English parliament would be less than a quarter of the Barnett subsidy to Scotland.Norm said:In a way the simplest outcome is for ALL Scottish MPs to refrain voluntarily from voting on English matters. They then retain full representation in parliament for non-devolved matters such as tomorrow's vote and we avoid the expense of additional tiers of government etc.
0 -
Practically, how would you turn that off?HurstLlama said:
Mrs Free, the Wahhabist sect followers remind me of the fundamentalist Christians of the the 17th century and, in lesser numbers through to the near present day, there was a strict Baptist Chapel in Hurstpiepoint until very recently (had about 4 members). Those strict sects though fell off because they didn't match the peoples' experience of life and, most importantly, they couldn't raise the funds to keep them going.Cyclefree said:
Wahhabism developed in the 18th century. Its founder thought he was going back to the essence of Islam. Whether that's so I wouldn't know. But its roots lie in an Islamic reaction to some of the changes which animated the world in the 18th century.Luckyguy1983 said:They are Muslims, but followers of a radical medieval sect within Islam called Wahhabism. Wherein lies terrorism, suicide bombings, beheadings of infidels, prostitution 'marriages', sharia law, preachers of hate, radicalisation, and basically every aspect of the unnacceptable face of Islam. We need to understand the nature and origins of Wahhabism if we're to combat it's effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi_movement Saying 'it's all of them' is as deep a misunderstanding as saying they're all angels.
So how can the Wahhabi sect continue to cause such problems for all in the 21st century? Simples - money from Saudi Arabia. Turn that off and Wahhabism (and thus a great deal of terrorism) will go away, quite quickly. However that would mean upsetting the Saudi Royal Family and we are not allowed to do that.0 -
Great putdown at the end.Scott_P said:@TheEconomist: Ed Miliband flunks one of his last opportunities to look like a worthy prime minister http://t.co/geRu2j7m8S http://t.co/0rhAoSn0Qm
0 -
There has to be a short term fudge for EV4EL whilst the degrees of freedom for the Welsh, Scots and N Irish are worked out.
Also we have the Scots in the fast lane, the Welsh wanting a fast lane but not including tax raising and the Irish something else.
The UK is physically too small to have large differences in tax raising rates (e.g. VAT, NI & IT, Corp Tax, IPT, Fuel Tax, etc etc) between the four countries. It will take some time to reach harmony here, before looking at other issues. Also the 2017 EU referendum could change matters.
We have too many politicians anyway. I see no reason why a MP should not serve say the UK two days a week and return to their own Parliament/Assembly for the remaining three days. This could be accomplished with shorter holidays. That way the MP would have longer time in their constituency and would represent their electorate more closely.
If however Scots, Welsh and Irish MPs voluntarily agree not to vote at Westminster on matters that are clearly defined as devolved, then perhaps such matters can be done more informally but tidily.0 -
Absolutely. You would also get media attention and scrutiny at the English level, in a way that you don't with regional assemblies. An English parliament is clearly the most sensible answer to the West Lothian question. And I opposed it a year ago: but I just needed to think through my aversions, which I realised were all abstract and not practical.williamglenn said:
I think it would also make it harder for people to follow the professional politician career path from SPAD to safe seat to national power. Having an English tier of government would enhance the pool of people with real executive experience and ultimately lead to more diversity at the national level.Socrates said:
Also, the issues left to a UK parliament would be the really big, meaty stuff: economics, foreign policy, defence etc. It might be good to have the really big bold thinkers on this separate from the people who have to worry about fly-tipping in the local park.williamglenn said:
Yes, the criticism that an English parliament would be 'too powerful' is really just a fear that the UK Prime Minister would not be powerful enough. It's an understandable small-c conservative reaction because it would be a big shift from what we are used to but doesn't have much substance. A well designed federal system would be strong enough to cope with an asymmetry in the size of its constituent parts.Socrates said:"On a grander scale an English parliament to sit alongside the other national bodies has some apparent symmetry to it. But the sheer size and dominance of England within the UK creates the potential for other conflicts. With significant issues devolved an English parliament would rise to be a competitor to the UK parliament, and have a potentially destabilising dominance over what remains of the Union."
Once again, the criticism of the English parliament idea is restricted to abstract terms that don't address any practical failure. How would an English executive dealing with health, education and transport "compete" with the UK government setting up financial service regulation, or deciding whether to bomb Syria? How would that be destabilising to the UK over time? Especially compared with a UK government collapsing because of defeats on English-only issues... it's a criticism that makes no sense.0 -
Three problems:TGOHF said:Speccie article - makes an interesting point - the threat of a YES vote got more powers for Scotland.
Surely if an EU referendum was looking like YES (to exit) - then similar concessions could be won - and only in that scenario.
Time to copy the Nats and call the EU's bluff ?
1) The UK isn't an essential part of the EU in the way that Scotland is an essential part of the UK.
2) The EU has at least 28 veto players, maybe 100 depending how you count it, so it can't turn on a sixpence the way three panicking party leaders can.
3) Scotland hasn't actually got anything yet, beyond some vague promises. And the Tory WLQ thing was probably an attempt to wriggle out of those...0 -
Mr. Financier, that could work but I can't see Labour agreeing to it.0
-
He has often made clear his disdain for England and the concept of Englishness so I consider him utterly unsuited as a 'neutral' commentator on these matters. He appears to view England as little more than a semi-autonomous region in the EU.TGOHF said:Who died and made Vernon Bognador god ?
Something less than perfect (EVEL) is better than something ridiculous (WLQ)0 -
Cheers Corporeal – good effort, but a little long winded and I’ve yet to find the conclusion.
O/T – are we at war yet…?
0 -
also liked..dr_spyn said:
Great putdown at the end.Scott_P said:@TheEconomist: Ed Miliband flunks one of his last opportunities to look like a worthy prime minister http://t.co/geRu2j7m8S http://t.co/0rhAoSn0Qm
"If he wins power, it will be down to the rise of the UK Independence Party, which has split the right. Weak, accidental, unprepared for the austerity measures it would be forced to undertake and with no popular mandate for Mr Miliband’s bold ideas, his government would have its disadvantages."0
