Ipsos Scotland poll has the SNP winning 56 of the 57 Scottish seats – politicalbetting.com

Gardenwalker said:

Hancock implies in his resignation letter that the Tories will be out of power for two terms.

Hardly surprising, no party in the last 100 years that lost power came back at the next general election with the new PM with the exception of Wilson's Labour Party in February 1974 (and even then it lost the popular vote)

FrankBooth said:

Carnyx said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

Just as a matter of interest, why do you think that? (Briefly, but I must have missed it.)

I don't think they would accept it anyway - but just wondering.

It would be far too dominant an entity. Where is there a successful example of devolution to such a majority demographic with a state?

To some extent Prussia in Germany, until 1918 or so. It didn’t end very well, from memory.

Nigelb said:

M45 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

Autocorrect trolling you in French?

Up yours, dehors ?

Venez dehors et dites moi ca.

Wow

"I did an experiment. I used #ChatGPT to see whether I could build a Tudor history reference website in less than a day. https://thetudorsbychatgpt.wordpress.com
A Tudor history site, with over 70 articles about the #Tudors, all written by a robot, in less than 2 hours total.
#AI #mindblown"

https://twitter.com/teysko/status/1600495791906476037?s=20&t=nBLjRTcrsbogGU2d2hm7PQ

Check it out. Two hours!

The explosion of accessible information, tailored to your exact needs, will be quite something. It puts many forms of traditional education and information-sharing in jeopardy

HYUFD said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

Why? Every other Federal nation gives every state or province or region within it its own Parliament too with all electing representatives to the main Federal Parliament.

Given it would probably take devomax for Scotland to vote No in any indyref2 and then only narrowly, the UK government's power outside England would already be significantly reduced anyway outside of foreign and defence policy and some taxes like income tax, so why not give England the same power over its domestic policies as the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments have?

At the moment the SNP conflating the UK Parliament with an English Parliament is a big boost for them, however misleading

Your party passed EVEL to deal with that question. And then scrapped it. Don't ask me why: or is it so you can then complain about it again?

Gardenwalker said:

Sunak and Gove should be under investigation. I doubt they are personally culpable, but the scale of ordure demands full transparency.

Interesting that Gove is best buds with Lord Agnew though, who resigned over Sunak's leaky treasury procurement practices.

Leon said:

Wow

"I did an experiment. I used #ChatGPT to see whether I could build a Tudor history reference website in less than a day. https://thetudorsbychatgpt.wordpress.com
A Tudor history site, with over 70 articles about the #Tudors, all written by a robot, in less than 2 hours total.
#AI #mindblown"

https://twitter.com/teysko/status/1600495791906476037?s=20&t=nBLjRTcrsbogGU2d2hm7PQ

Check it out. Two hours!

The explosion of accessible information, tailored to your exact needs, will be quite something. It puts many forms of traditional education and information-sharing in jeopardy

I am a big fan of ChatGPT and raving about it to friends and family.

But this is a crappy use-case because one of the known weaknesses is it that it doesn’t regurgitate facts all that accurately.

The Tudor history site might be reasonable for a school project or something, but not for a serious scholar or indeed a keen amateur.

Carnyx said:

FrankBooth said:

Carnyx said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

Just as a matter of interest, why do you think that? (Briefly, but I must have missed it.)

I don't think they would accept it anyway - but just wondering.

It would be far too dominant an entity. Where is there a successful example of devolution to such a majority demographic with a state?

Thanks - yes, in that perspective, that makes sense. Very much one conclusion from the discussions on PB back in 2013 - would not work, without doing an Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy job - but that latter in itself is problematical in getting it through.

In essence, the conflict between English First Minister and UK Prime Minister ends in the defeat of the UK Prime Minister.

Gardenwalker said:

Hancock implies in his resignation letter that the Tories will be out of power for two terms.

There is an element of pathos in the observation that Heinrich XIII is trending on Twitter, and Hancock isn't.

Gardenwalker said:

Carnyx said:

FrankBooth said:

Carnyx said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

Just as a matter of interest, why do you think that? (Briefly, but I must have missed it.)

I don't think they would accept it anyway - but just wondering.

It would be far too dominant an entity. Where is there a successful example of devolution to such a majority demographic with a state?

Thanks - yes, in that perspective, that makes sense. Very much one conclusion from the discussions on PB back in 2013 - would not work, without doing an Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy job - but that latter in itself is problematical in getting it through.

In essence, the conflict between English First Minister and UK Prime Minister ends in the defeat of the UK Prime Minister.

No it doesn't, not if the UK Parliament remains sovereign over foreign policy, defence, income tax, immigration etc.

The English FM and English Parliament would otherwise have no more power over English domestic policy than the Scottish FM does over Scottish domestic policy or the Welsh FM over Welsh domestic policy

DJ41 said:

The reporting in the British media on today's armed coup prevention operation in Germany involving 3000 police and raids on 130 properties has been somewhat unimpressive. One of the searches seems to have been at the barracks of the KSK, Germany's special forces command. (Prosecutors wouldn't confirm or deny this.)

I love the way the BBC say "The Reichsbürger movement is estimated to have as many as 21,000 followers, of whom around 5% are considered to belong to the extreme right." Presumably the other 95% are fairly liberal when it comes down to it, believing in live and let live, feeling that everyone should have their say, and being neutral or even positive about immigration.

They got it from wiki

In April 2018, Germany's domestic intelligence service, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), estimated that Reichsbürger movement membership had grown by 80% over the previous two years, more than estimated earlier, with a total of 18,000 adherents, of whom 950 were categorized as right-wing extremists.[18]

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

But it *is* the English parliament de facto for a number of functions, such as planning, and so on. You can't have a dual function parliament and complain when it is described as the English one for certain of its functions.

It is indeed an English parliament in a number of respects. Education is another biggie. But I struggle to see how a devolved English parliament is the answer to this. 5/6 of the the population and the economy of the UK is England. It is most of the country - so the national parliament de facto is the English parliament too. Proper devolution in England would grant more powers to regions - but there's no real appetite for that as far as the standard statistical government regions go (not least because they are arbitrary and lack cultural cohesion, on the whole).

LAs on the other hand are probably too small. So I don't know what the answer is. But I'm pretty sure it's not an English parliament.

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

Thus rendering England even closer to political non-existence than it is now? Utterly shortsighted.

M45 said:

Nigelb said:

M45 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

Autocorrect trolling you in French?

Up yours, dehors ?

Venez dehors et dites moi ca.

Drat.

You can tell I’ve been texting away to a French speaker.

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

That would be better than now but still would not stop the SNP portraying the UK Parliament as the English Parliament and still denies English identity unlike Scottish and Welsh and NI identity

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

That would be better than now but still would not stop the SNP portraying the UK Parliament as the English Parliament and still denies English identity unlike Scottish and Welsh and NI identity

Who is denying English identity?
As for the SNP, nothing is going to stop them portraying Westminster as anything but am imposition.

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

Thus rendering England even closer to political non-existence than it is now? Utterly shortsighted.

By your definition, England has had no political existence since the Act of Union.

Which begs the question, why does it need one?

Why does Scotland need one?

There's also the realpolitik that people who care about this, though small in number, vote. Perhaps only 1% or 2% of the voting public - but in 2016 they all voted the same way.

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

Thus rendering England even closer to political non-existence than it is now? Utterly shortsighted.

By your definition, England has had no political existence since the Act of Union.

Which begs the question, why does it need one?

Why does Scotland need one?

There's also the realpolitik that people who care about this, though small in number, vote. Perhaps only 1% or 2% of the voting public - but in 2016 they all voted the same way.

Scotland wants one.
Does England?

"want" is not the same thing as "need".

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

Thus rendering England even closer to political non-existence than it is now? Utterly shortsighted.

By your definition, England has had no political existence since the Act of Union.

Which begs the question, why does it need one?

Why does Scotland need one?

There's also the realpolitik that people who care about this, though small in number, vote. Perhaps only 1% or 2% of the voting public - but in 2016 they all voted the same way.

Scotland wants one.
Does England?

"want" is not the same thing as "need".

England neither wants nor needs one.

Apple now declares more of its profits in Ireland than in the US.

Ireland has created some kind of magic money making machine, siphoning massive amounts of tax from global corporates.

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

Thus rendering England even closer to political non-existence than it is now? Utterly shortsighted.

By your definition, England has had no political existence since the Act of Union.

Which begs the question, why does it need one?

Why does Scotland need one?

There's also the realpolitik that people who care about this, though small in number, vote. Perhaps only 1% or 2% of the voting public - but in 2016 they all voted the same way.

Scotland wants one.
Does England?

"want" is not the same thing as "need".

England neither wants nor needs one.

You don't think England needs to be treated as an equal partner?

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

That would be better than now but still would not stop the SNP portraying the UK Parliament as the English Parliament and still denies English identity unlike Scottish and Welsh and NI identity

Who is denying English identity?
As for the SNP, nothing is going to stop them portraying Westminster as anything but am imposition.

England has no Parliament of its own, no unique anthem even for most of its sport teams

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

Thus rendering England even closer to political non-existence than it is now? Utterly shortsighted.

By your definition, England has had no political existence since the Act of Union.

Which begs the question, why does it need one?

Why does Scotland need one?

There's also the realpolitik that people who care about this, though small in number, vote. Perhaps only 1% or 2% of the voting public - but in 2016 they all voted the same way.

Scotland wants one.
Does England?

"want" is not the same thing as "need".

England neither wants nor needs one.

41% of English voters back an English Parliament already, including 52% of Leave voters in England

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44208859

So not a majority then.

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

Thus rendering England even closer to political non-existence than it is now? Utterly shortsighted.

By your definition, England has had no political existence since the Act of Union.

Which begs the question, why does it need one?

Why does Scotland need one?

There's also the realpolitik that people who care about this, though small in number, vote. Perhaps only 1% or 2% of the voting public - but in 2016 they all voted the same way.

Scotland wants one.
Does England?

"want" is not the same thing as "need".

England neither wants nor needs one.

You don't think England needs to be treated as an equal partner?

No, because in reality England is knocking on 90% of the population of the Union.

And because “treated”, “equal” and “partner” are all highly loaded, subjective terms.

As explained to you already, creating an English parliament would likely end up dissolving the Union.

It was asserted, but not justified. And the unfair asymmetric devolution we have is going to end up dissolving the Union anyway.

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

Thus rendering England even closer to political non-existence than it is now? Utterly shortsighted.

By your definition, England has had no political existence since the Act of Union.

Which begs the question, why does it need one?

Why does Scotland need one?

There's also the realpolitik that people who care about this, though small in number, vote. Perhaps only 1% or 2% of the voting public - but in 2016 they all voted the same way.

Scotland wants one.
Does England?

"want" is not the same thing as "need".

England neither wants nor needs one.

You don't think England needs to be treated as an equal partner?

No, because in reality England is knocking on 90% of the population of the Union.

And because “treated”, “equal” and “partner” are all highly loaded, subjective terms.

As explained to you already, creating an English parliament would likely end up dissolving the Union.

It was asserted, but not justified. And the unfair asymmetric devolution we have is going to end up dissolving the Union anyway.

it’s asserted and justified by reference to (1) the historical example of Prussia; (2) the complete lack of another extant example equivalent to what would be created should England have its one Parliament.

To the extent that the Union might dissolve, the culprit is not asymmetry.

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

But it *is* the English parliament de facto for a number of functions, such as planning, and so on. You can't have a dual function parliament and complain when it is described as the English one for certain of its functions.

It is indeed an English parliament in a number of respects. Education is another biggie. But I struggle to see how a devolved English parliament is the answer to this. 5/6 of the the population and the economy of the UK is England. It is most of the country - so the national parliament de facto is the English parliament too. Proper devolution in England would grant more powers to regions - but there's no real appetite for that as far as the standard statistical government regions go (not least because they are arbitrary and lack cultural cohesion, on the whole).

LAs on the other hand are probably too small. So I don't know what the answer is. But I'm pretty sure it's not an English parliament.

The counties and metros are not too small.
Or if they are, someone tell Luxembourg, Delaware, Canberra etc etc etc.

Carnyx said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

That would be better than now but still would not stop the SNP portraying the UK Parliament as the English Parliament and still denies English identity unlike Scottish and Welsh and NI identity

Who is denying English identity?
As for the SNP, nothing is going to stop them portraying Westminster as anything but am imposition.

England has no Parliament of its own, no unique anthem even for most of its sport teams

And?

Does an identity demand a Parliament?
Interesting line of thought.

It's not as if the UK even has an Olympics team, given the way the NI people are dealt with, and the BOA's own insistence of branding it Team GB.

'Team GB is the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team run by the British Olympic Association'
https://twitter.com/teamgb

Gardenwalker said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

But it *is* the English parliament de facto for a number of functions, such as planning, and so on. You can't have a dual function parliament and complain when it is described as the English one for certain of its functions.

It is indeed an English parliament in a number of respects. Education is another biggie. But I struggle to see how a devolved English parliament is the answer to this. 5/6 of the the population and the economy of the UK is England. It is most of the country - so the national parliament de facto is the English parliament too. Proper devolution in England would grant more powers to regions - but there's no real appetite for that as far as the standard statistical government regions go (not least because they are arbitrary and lack cultural cohesion, on the whole).

LAs on the other hand are probably too small. So I don't know what the answer is. But I'm pretty sure it's not an English parliament.

The counties and metros are not too small.
Or if they are, someone tell Luxembourg, Delaware, Canberra etc etc etc.

I think the counties (and county-sized metros) are an ideal size for further devolved government. Similar to Swiss cantons, which work very well.

I think if we see a handful of polls above 60%, Indyref2 is on. Undeniable momentum at that point.

Until then, this looks like an outlier, especially considering the Labour numbers.

FrankBooth said:

It would be far too dominant an entity. Where is there a successful example of devolution to such a majority demographic with a state?

I don't think you're wrong about England dominating. I had thought that the problem with the current setup is that it isn't fair on England to have no representation.

I thought a solution might be to have each nation have its own Parliament, with Westminster only being (at most) 200 MPs responsible for foreign affairs, defence and maybe broad overview of some other departments.

But as you say, the issue would come in the first GE when England voted for a Conservative government, but the UK voted Labour. You'd have a UK Labour PM trying to deal with a English Conservative FM (or whatever they'd call themselves). I don't know how that would work at all.

A possible solution I've seen proposed is to have London have its own devolved assembly too, not in England, so there are five (not four) which would weaken England though whether it would weaken England enough, and quite what people living in London would think about being told they could be Londoners or British but not English (at least not politically) I'm not sure (who would they support in the FIFA World Cup?).

Gardenwalker said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

But it *is* the English parliament de facto for a number of functions, such as planning, and so on. You can't have a dual function parliament and complain when it is described as the English one for certain of its functions.

It is indeed an English parliament in a number of respects. Education is another biggie. But I struggle to see how a devolved English parliament is the answer to this. 5/6 of the the population and the economy of the UK is England. It is most of the country - so the national parliament de facto is the English parliament too. Proper devolution in England would grant more powers to regions - but there's no real appetite for that as far as the standard statistical government regions go (not least because they are arbitrary and lack cultural cohesion, on the whole).

LAs on the other hand are probably too small. So I don't know what the answer is. But I'm pretty sure it's not an English parliament.

The counties and metros are not too small.
Or if they are, someone tell Luxembourg, Delaware, Canberra etc etc etc.

True I guess. A lot of councillors are shite though; maybe that's what bothers me. "But so are MPs" - fair enough.

I wholeheartedly agree with devolution to metro areas though. This would be popular, sensible and probably quite effective.

Nigelb said:

Sunak doing his best Claude Rains impression.

MICHELLE MONE

Sunak: “Like everyone else I was absolutely shocked to read about the allegations. It’s absolutely right that she is no longer attending the House of Lords and therefore no longer has the Conservative Whip.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1600462541213368320

That doesn’t make sense. If it is right that her company failed to honour its commitments to supply the specified items, appropriate financial redress must be sought. If that's not the case, he has no business slagging her off on the floor of the Commons. What is he actually doing to follow through?

Gardenwalker said:

Ghedebrav said:

Gardenwalker said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

But it *is* the English parliament de facto for a number of functions, such as planning, and so on. You can't have a dual function parliament and complain when it is described as the English one for certain of its functions.

It is indeed an English parliament in a number of respects. Education is another biggie. But I struggle to see how a devolved English parliament is the answer to this. 5/6 of the the population and the economy of the UK is England. It is most of the country - so the national parliament de facto is the English parliament too. Proper devolution in England would grant more powers to regions - but there's no real appetite for that as far as the standard statistical government regions go (not least because they are arbitrary and lack cultural cohesion, on the whole).

LAs on the other hand are probably too small. So I don't know what the answer is. But I'm pretty sure it's not an English parliament.

The counties and metros are not too small.
Or if they are, someone tell Luxembourg, Delaware, Canberra etc etc etc.

True I guess. A lot of councillors are shite though; maybe that's what bothers me. "But so are MPs" - fair enough.

I wholeheartedly agree with devolution to metro areas though. This would be popular, sensible and probably quite effective.

Local government hardly attracts talent in part because the stakes are so low.

Also true. Plus it doesn't pay, unless you're in it for the corruption (or I think the London Assembly pays its members).

Luckyguy1983 said:

Nigelb said:

Sunak doing his best Claude Rains impression.

MICHELLE MONE

Sunak: “Like everyone else I was absolutely shocked to read about the allegations. It’s absolutely right that she is no longer attending the House of Lords and therefore no longer has the Conservative Whip.”
https://mobile.twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1600462541213368320

That doesn’t make sense. If it is right that her company failed to honour its commitments to supply the specified items, appropriate financial redress must be sought. If that's not the case, he has no business slagging her off on the floor of the Commons. What is he actually doing to follow through?

Follow through? This is government we're talking about!

I am reminded of how shocked Johnson said he was, when he found out about the parties....

Gardenwalker said:

Apple now declares more of its profits in Ireland than in the US.

Ireland has created some kind of magic money making machine, siphoning massive amounts of tax from global corporates.

It’s called having low corporation tax. It's not rocket science, despite some Sunak supporting loons trying to portray otherwise.

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

That would be better than now but still would not stop the SNP portraying the UK Parliament as the English Parliament and still denies English identity unlike Scottish and Welsh and NI identity

Who is denying English identity?
As for the SNP, nothing is going to stop them portraying Westminster as anything but am imposition.

England has no Parliament of its own, no unique anthem even for most of its sport teams

And?

Does an identity demand a Parliament?
Interesting line of thought.

Yes, otherwise England does not really exist as a country in the same way the other home nations do

Well that’s just a claim you are making.
According to your own poll, only a minority agree with you.

41% is a very strong minority for a political position that both major parties are opposed to.

Driver said:

.

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

That would be better than now but still would not stop the SNP portraying the UK Parliament as the English Parliament and still denies English identity unlike Scottish and Welsh and NI identity

Who is denying English identity?
As for the SNP, nothing is going to stop them portraying Westminster as anything but am imposition.

England has no Parliament of its own, no unique anthem even for most of its sport teams

And?

Does an identity demand a Parliament?
Interesting line of thought.

Yes, otherwise England does not really exist as a country in the same way the other home nations do

Well that’s just a claim you are making.
According to your own poll, only a minority agree with you.

41% is a very strong minority for a political position that both major parties are opposed to.

It’s also a untested and unexplored proposition.

41% of voters may well want a free Ferrari.

ohnotnow said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63893115

"Border Force staff to strike over Christmas

Border Force staff are going on strike for eight days over Christmas at Heathrow, Gatwick and several other airports, the PCS union has announced."

Universal surprise that they have actually been at work up to this point.

Driver said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

Driver said:

FrankBooth said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

I don't know how many times I have to point this out but the UK is unlikely to survive an English parliament. So if your concern is preserving the Union, which it doesn't have to be, it's the worst idea imaginable.

It isn't surviving the lack of one.

But in any case, an English parliament isn't - or shouldn't be - about the Union. It's about simple fairness, plus of course, splitting the English government from the UK governmen allows the latter to do co-ordination between the four nations when necessary.

People who advocate for an English Parliament haven’t thought about it much.

The way to square the circle is to devolve as much as possible to English counties and metros.

That would be better than now but still would not stop the SNP portraying the UK Parliament as the English Parliament and still denies English identity unlike Scottish and Welsh and NI identity

Who is denying English identity?
As for the SNP, nothing is going to stop them portraying Westminster as anything but am imposition.

England has no Parliament of its own, no unique anthem even for most of its sport teams

And?

Does an identity demand a Parliament?
Interesting line of thought.

Yes, otherwise England does not really exist as a country in the same way the other home nations do

Well that’s just a claim you are making.
According to your own poll, only a minority agree with you.

41% is a very strong minority for a political position that both major parties are opposed to.

If the Tories lose the next general election and Labour gives Holyrood devomax I suspect the Conservatives will switch to back an English Parliament in opposition

Gardenwalker said:

Ghedebrav said:

Gardenwalker said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

But it *is* the English parliament de facto for a number of functions, such as planning, and so on. You can't have a dual function parliament and complain when it is described as the English one for certain of its functions.

It is indeed an English parliament in a number of respects. Education is another biggie. But I struggle to see how a devolved English parliament is the answer to this. 5/6 of the the population and the economy of the UK is England. It is most of the country - so the national parliament de facto is the English parliament too. Proper devolution in England would grant more powers to regions - but there's no real appetite for that as far as the standard statistical government regions go (not least because they are arbitrary and lack cultural cohesion, on the whole).

LAs on the other hand are probably too small. So I don't know what the answer is. But I'm pretty sure it's not an English parliament.

The counties and metros are not too small.
Or if they are, someone tell Luxembourg, Delaware, Canberra etc etc etc.

True I guess. A lot of councillors are shite though; maybe that's what bothers me. "But so are MPs" - fair enough.

I wholeheartedly agree with devolution to metro areas though. This would be popular, sensible and probably quite effective.

Metros and counties.

I see no reason why Rutland - to take the most “extreme” case - should not run its own planning, housing, policing, education authority and health commissioning.

And corporation tax. Set a national minimum rate of CT (say 20%) and then allow counties to raise local tax over and above this, then reduce their central grant commensurately but allow them to keep locally charged income taxes. Some areas such as West London would probably end up charging another 6 or 7%, but more marginal regions would charge little or no extra.

It's how things work in Switzerland but also how they work in Germany, with trade tax, in the US states and in many other federalised countries including India and China.

Luckyguy1983 said:

ohnotnow said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-63893115

"Border Force staff to strike over Christmas

Border Force staff are going on strike for eight days over Christmas at Heathrow, Gatwick and several other airports, the PCS union has announced."

Universal surprise that they have actually been at work up to this point.

I've never had a problem with queues at border control - it's everywhere else in the airport that problems occur.

Not going to be a problem for my next journey as it's Teesside. Rolling in at 16:30 for the 17:15 should be more than enough time to get through security.

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Apple now declares more of its profits in Ireland than in the US.

Ireland has created some kind of magic money making machine, siphoning massive amounts of tax from global corporates.

It’s called having low corporation tax. It's not rocket science, despite some Sunak supporting loons trying to portray otherwise.

No it's called having 0 corporation tax, or I think 0.065% or something ridiculous like that.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

kinabalu said:

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

I know I'm slightly late with this about Jan 6th but "Four Hours at the Capitol" (Netflix) makes it clear that this was not a coup. It was a bunch of malcontents marching on the seat of power to protest their perceived grievances.

A bit like the Stop the War or Liberty & Livelihood Marches. But with a bit more violence, as is often the case in the US.

Only as it turned out.

The alleged intent, as discussed on the last thread, was the creation of sufficient mayhem for a state of emergency to be declared by the President.

Speculation, of course. But not at all like any of the above mentioned marches.
Which British cabinet ministers justifiably feared for their lives as a result of those ?

Yes they were heated. But many were just pushing from the back, others were stoned, others were just on protest tourism. Some were "serious" but there were cries of no violence [against people] resonating throughout the day.

I can guarantee that if they had had murderous intent there would have been murders.

That is of course not to diminish the fear that those locked down inside were feeling at what was happening outside.

It was insurrection but attempted 'coup' isn't quite right imo. There was no controlling intelligence - such being by definition impossible with anything pertaining to Donald Trump. Whilst the mayhem was raging he was clueless and still obsessing about Pence blocking the results certification - something only he and Rudi Guiliani truly believed had a chance of happening. The guy has constructed a fantasy world. He lives exclusively in that and his power comes from the 30m Americans who buy into it. His personal base. He's fully capable of trashing American democracy but not in a way that involves joined up thinking. He'll do it - given the chance - by the capricious sublimation of everything and everybody to his 'impulses', ie just by being himself.

Trump's recent statement re: suspending the Constitution would appear to punch a hole in your agrument.

Granted he's a fantasist and self-delusionist, but he's also has zero respect for the rule of law, including his own sworn oath.

He wanted to - and tried to - overthrow the elected government of the United States. Ignorance and disregard for the law and Constitution - spirit AND letter - being zero excuse.

He did try to do that, yes. Without a doubt. I'm not arguing otherwise.

Good piece, including: "For 25 years, the Conservatives have been terrorised by populists without and hardliners within. Leader after leader has thrown red meat to their right flank in the hope that one last meal will silence their barking only to be surprised when it doesn’t."
https://twitter.com/chrisgreybrexit/status/1600520013089234944
https://twitter.com/robertshrimsley/status/1600518055968350208

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheValiant said:

FrankBooth said:

It would be far too dominant an entity. Where is there a successful example of devolution to such a majority demographic with a state?

I don't think you're wrong about England dominating. I had thought that the problem with the current setup is that it isn't fair on England to have no representation.

I thought a solution might be to have each nation have its own Parliament, with Westminster only being (at most) 200 MPs responsible for foreign affairs, defence and maybe broad overview of some other departments.

But as you say, the issue would come in the first GE when England voted for a Conservative government, but the UK voted Labour. You'd have a UK Labour PM trying to deal with a English Conservative FM (or whatever they'd call themselves). I don't know how that would work at all.

A possible solution I've seen proposed is to have London have its own devolved assembly too, not in England, so there are five (not four) which would weaken England though whether it would weaken England enough, and quite what people living in London would think about being told they could be Londoners or British but not English (at least not politically) I'm not sure (who would they support in the FIFA World Cup?).

The lopsided constitutional set up, where the smaller nations have their own parliaments but the dominant nation doesn't, is I think probably the norm where you have these kind of unequal federations. I belive for instance that Tobago has its own parliament but Trinidad doesn't, similarly with Nevis vs St Kitts.
It certainly complicates things, it would be far easier if England wasn't 90% of the UK's population. I think in practical terms, if there were an English FM and a British PM, the first time the two disagreed fundamentally on a really important issue where the UK PM was on paper the decision maker the UK would break up.

No it wouldn't because the position would be no different to before in terms of the UK PM's powers for the non English home nations, just England would finally have its own First Minister for the same domestic policy the other home nations do

Supporters of an English Parliament never explain how it would improve the governance of England.

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TheValiant said:

FrankBooth said:

It would be far too dominant an entity. Where is there a successful example of devolution to such a majority demographic with a state?

I don't think you're wrong about England dominating. I had thought that the problem with the current setup is that it isn't fair on England to have no representation.

I thought a solution might be to have each nation have its own Parliament, with Westminster only being (at most) 200 MPs responsible for foreign affairs, defence and maybe broad overview of some other departments.

But as you say, the issue would come in the first GE when England voted for a Conservative government, but the UK voted Labour. You'd have a UK Labour PM trying to deal with a English Conservative FM (or whatever they'd call themselves). I don't know how that would work at all.

A possible solution I've seen proposed is to have London have its own devolved assembly too, not in England, so there are five (not four) which would weaken England though whether it would weaken England enough, and quite what people living in London would think about being told they could be Londoners or British but not English (at least not politically) I'm not sure (who would they support in the FIFA World Cup?).

The lopsided constitutional set up, where the smaller nations have their own parliaments but the dominant nation doesn't, is I think probably the norm where you have these kind of unequal federations. I belive for instance that Tobago has its own parliament but Trinidad doesn't, similarly with Nevis vs St Kitts.
It certainly complicates things, it would be far easier if England wasn't 90% of the UK's population. I think in practical terms, if there were an English FM and a British PM, the first time the two disagreed fundamentally on a really important issue where the UK PM was on paper the decision maker the UK would break up.

No it wouldn't because the position would be no different to before in terms of the UK PM's powers for the non English home nations, just England would finally have its own First Minister for the same domestic policy the other home nations do

Supporters of an English Parliament never explain how it would improve the governance of England.

They are intereste in the symmetry rather than the actual instrumental effects of governance.

Forgive spelling mistakes. I am at an optometrist and they have put drops in to “open up my pupils”.

Gardenwalker said:

kinabalu said:

Gardenwalker said:

TimS said:

Gardenwalker said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

But it *is* the English parliament de facto for a number of functions, such as planning, and so on. You can't have a dual function parliament and complain when it is described as the English one for certain of its functions.

It is indeed an English parliament in a number of respects. Education is another biggie. But I struggle to see how a devolved English parliament is the answer to this. 5/6 of the the population and the economy of the UK is England. It is most of the country - so the national parliament de facto is the English parliament too. Proper devolution in England would grant more powers to regions - but there's no real appetite for that as far as the standard statistical government regions go (not least because they are arbitrary and lack cultural cohesion, on the whole).

LAs on the other hand are probably too small. So I don't know what the answer is. But I'm pretty sure it's not an English parliament.

The counties and metros are not too small.
Or if they are, someone tell Luxembourg, Delaware, Canberra etc etc etc.

I think the counties (and county-sized metros) are an ideal size for further devolved government. Similar to Swiss cantons, which work very well.

Exactly. We need to be more Swiss.

And concede 6 to Portugal? Hardly.

I just mean constitutionally and economically.

Very little interesting culture and no comedy ever has come from Switzerland.

Dads was probably a scream of boredom.

A quick google turns up an iconic comedy ice skating duo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frick_and_Frack

kinabalu said:

Gardenwalker said:

kinabalu said:

Gardenwalker said:

TimS said:

Gardenwalker said:

Ghedebrav said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Suckers, you Scots had your chance in 2014.

But who could have foreseen denying the people their repeated wish for Indyref2 would have electoral consequences?

What electoral consequences? SNP had a majority of Scottish Westminster seats before and might have a slightly bigger majority of them on this poll.

Westminster though can still refuse indyref2 indefinitely post SC judgement

There’s a morality and democracy angle you miss.

You are the sort of person who would have dehors the suffragettes the vote.

You’re approach guarantees Scotland votes to leave eventually.

I don't think he cares. The line is always "As long as Boris Johnson is PM there will not be a second referendum". We've had two changes of PM since and even HY recognises the Tories are heading for the political cliff edge. And yet the same anti-democratic guff.

But - and its a big but - Labour are frit as well. Their Brownian package of reforms fails to address any of the big problems - lack of an English parliament, lack of clarity as to the shape of the UK vs the 3 devolved nations and the 4th non-devolved one, remaining married to FPTP etc etc.

An English parliament would certainly solve the problem of the SNP portraying Westminster as the English rather than UK Parliament

But it *is* the English parliament de facto for a number of functions, such as planning, and so on. You can't have a dual function parliament and complain when it is described as the English one for certain of its functions.

It is indeed an English parliament in a number of respects. Education is another biggie. But I struggle to see how a devolved English parliament is the answer to this. 5/6 of the the population and the economy of the UK is England. It is most of the country - so the national parliament de facto is the English parliament too. Proper devolution in England would grant more powers to regions - but there's no real appetite for that as far as the standard statistical government regions go (not least because they are arbitrary and lack cultural cohesion, on the whole).

LAs on the other hand are probably too small. So I don't know what the answer is. But I'm pretty sure it's not an English parliament.

The counties and metros are not too small.
Or if they are, someone tell Luxembourg, Delaware, Canberra etc etc etc.

I think the counties (and county-sized metros) are an ideal size for further devolved government. Similar to Swiss cantons, which work very well.

Exactly. We need to be more Swiss.

And concede 6 to Portugal? Hardly.

I just mean constitutionally and economically.

Very little interesting culture and no comedy ever has come from Switzerland.

Dads was probably a scream of boredom.

A quick google turns up an iconic comedy ice skating duo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frick_and_Frack

Did I type Dads? I meant Dada.

Frock and Frack? Even the name makes them sound feeble. Like Little and Large. On ice. In Swiss German.

Seattle Times ($) - Election denial was roasted by WA voters, but it still brings in the bucks

column by Danny Westneat - Election denialism got roughed up by reality last month.

Candidates fueled by election-theft conspiracies did so poorly in the midterms that there’s been some speculation — some hope — that the vote fraud mania campaign ginned up on the right might finally slink away.

But it hasn’t. It’s just migrated back to its natural habitat: the MAGA fundraising racket.

On the surface, it’s delusional that Republican candidate Joe Kent hasn’t yet accepted his election loss in Southwest Washington’s 3rd Congressional District, and is planning to request a recount.

He lost by 2,629 votes. That may sound close, but it’s far outside of any margin that has been made up by a recount in this state. It’s more than twice the vote margin by which he himself defeated the incumbent, Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, in the August primary. She didn’t ask for a recount because she knew it was fruitless. And he wasn’t squawking about “transparency” and “irregularities” once he knew he’d prevailed. . . .

What the Joe Kent recount is really about, I suspect, is Joe Kent not wanting to lose cred with this Trump-MAGA ecosystem. It’s the same reason fellow Donald Trump endorsee Loren Culp pointlessly sued over his huge loss in the 2020 governor’s race. And why Trump’s former statewide campaign chairman, Don Benton, has demanded a partial recount of his council race down in Clark County, even though he lost it by nearly 3 percentage points.

Fighting is MAGA. Accepting is RINO.

The MAGA way also happens to make a ton of money. It’s no coincidence that Kent last month established the “Joe Kent Recount Fund.” Because the election is over, he’s able to hit up all his supporters anew: “You may contribute a maximum of $2900 (or $5800 if married), regardless of how much you contributed to the Kent campaign previously.”

Earlier this fall, Bloomberg News studied social media patterns and found that election denialism sparked dramatically more positive engagement from supporters for GOP candidates than any other issue. So while it may be toxic with the mainstream, with the MAGA base it’s the coin of the realm.

“What these data show is that promoting lies about the 2020 election is profitable for both candidates and social media platforms themselves,” the article said. . . .

You can see why the election-denial train keeps chugging along. It has countless enablers. And countless more making bank.

So, sure, recount the votes. It won’t make a whit of difference in the outcome. But unfortunately, even proving the count was solid won’t snap many election doubters back to reality.

The only way to end this con? Stop giving the con artists money.

SSI - Grifters gotta grift.