Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ News and Politics _ What next for the UK?
Posted by: Suedehead2 20th September 2014, 01:21 PM
Just before the Scottish referendum the leaders of the three main Westminster parties promised to devolve more powers to Scotland in the event of a No vote. Implicit in that was that there should be changes to the way the rest of the UK works. Quite what those changes will be is another matter although all three parties would cede significant tax varying powers.
The Tories have revived their idea of "English votes for English laws". In other words, Scottish MPs would not be allowed to vote on issues which are devolved to Scotland on the grounds that the vote does not affect their constituents. This has a number of flaws. First, it is purely party political. The Tories know that it will make it harder for any future Labour government as they may not have a majority without Scottish MPs. It also ignores the fact that all MPs are elected to a UK parliament and therefore have a right to participate in all votes. After all, the Tories were perfectly happy to use the votes of English MPs to impose the Poll Tax on Scotland. It would also mean potentially having ministers who could not vote for their own department's legislation.
The daftest idea has come from Kenneth Baker (former Tory minister accurately represented on Spitting Image as a slug) who has suggested that UK-wide matters would be discussed on Monday and Friday while English matters would occupy Tuesday to Thursday. Therefore, Scottish MPs would have to travel to and from Westminster twice a week. Of course, a cynic may think that he is hoping that many Scottish MPs (and only one of them is a Tory at the moment) would attend on Monday or Friday but not both.
Unless Charlie, Danny or Tirren know better, Labour's plans are unclear.
The Lib Dems have been in favour of further devolution for decades. This would involve elected regional assemblies in England rather than an English parliament (whether elected or cobbled together as above). These assemblies would have wide-ranging powers. As a result the number of MPs would be reduced significantly as they would have less to do. There are two main objections to an English parliament even if it is elected. First, it would be dominated by London and the South East with the City of London still calling the shots. Second, any federal structure cannot function effectively if more than 80% of the population live in one of the four constituent parts.
The Tories have been making a lot of noise about how Scottish MPs would be able to vote on tax matters which no longer affected Scotland if the Scottish parliament was able to set its own rates. That can be resolved. We could have something similar to the US Federal Tax with the regions having the power to raise additional funds though a regional income tax. The Federal Tax would raise enough to pay for federal matters such as defence as well as allocating grants to the regions - and local government - for redistributive purposes. Administration could be done centrally to avoid employers having to handle a multitude of tax rates.
I an sympathetic to the idea of using the regional assemblies to populate the second chamber in the same way that the make-up of the German second chamber is dependent on the make-up of the state governments. The regional assemblies (elected by PR) would nominate members in proportion to their numbers in the assembly. Ideally, we would also follow Germany in having the regional assemblies elected at various times rather than all at the same time. Therefore, the make-up of the second chamber would change gradually throughout the lifetime of a parliament.
Discuss.
Posted by: Danny 20th September 2014, 01:36 PM
I think they've been talking about giving cities more power, which I don't like all that much because the northern cities (especially Manchester and Liverpool) are actually doing OK-ish, it's the working-class towns in the north that have really been neglected and left to rot away over the past decades. I'd rather regional parliaments/assemblies to look after everyone's interests.
Love how nakedly partisan the Tories' "English votes for English laws" thing is, but don't know why Labour commentators are going so crazy about how it would stop them winning any elections; by my maths, they would only need to win 8 additional seats in England to make up the ground lost by excluding non-English MPs.
Posted by: popchartfreak 20th September 2014, 02:46 PM
Abolish house of lords use their assets as the basis for elected reps on English only matters.
I like the idea of elections at different times and the second chamber could function as a check on hastily drafted laws that needed a bit of tweaking.
I don't see why counties can't be the basis for p.r. elected members numbers to be based on population.
Sorted.... 
Posted by: ¿ REY CARLOS ? 20th September 2014, 04:59 PM
It wouldn't be a case of ploughing money into city centres necessarily - it would be directed towards metropolitan counties or city regions, which a lot of the most neglected areas fall under. If nothing else then the number of Labour MPs in further out areas would presumably make it inevitable that non-metropolitan councils get greater powers as well.
I read in the Independent that Ed is going to propose that the Lords is replaced by "a senate of nations and regions" in order to make it more representative. Bit vague but I'm guessing that means appointed figures from local authorities.
Posted by: Suedehead2 20th September 2014, 05:07 PM
I read in the Independent that Ed is going to propose that the Lords is replaced by "a senate of nations and regions" in order to make it more representative. Bit vague but I'm guessing that means appointed figures from local authorities.
That sounds similar to what I was proposing in my original post.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 20th September 2014, 05:20 PM
Given that the UK's not going to get any smaller, there's now nothing to say that it can't get bigger. Therefore, I think we should invite Iceland to join the United Kingdom. That way, the UK gets a volcano. And who doesn't like volcanoes? Aside from dinosaurs, obviously.
Posted by: Suedehead2 20th September 2014, 06:10 PM
No, we can't have that. It would mean average summer temperatures would be lower
Posted by: !Khimaros! 20th September 2014, 09:10 PM
Could that be possible? Would Iceland want to join the union?
The Senate, looking after almost federal-state-like interests, sounds amazing.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 20th September 2014, 09:20 PM
Definitely get rid of the House of Lords. Labour have been suggesting replacing it with a democratically elected regional/national federal senate for some time now and it sounds like a pretty sensible suggestion to me.
Posted by: ¿ REY CARLOS ? 20th September 2014, 09:34 PM
I think we can still count on the dinosaur vote as long as no one's advocating a union with the Federation of Meteorites.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 20th September 2014, 09:38 PM
The Senate, looking after almost federal-state-like interests, sounds amazing.
They probably would have given it serious consideration had it been offered five years ago when their economy went belly-up, and it would mean that they would be able to become part of the EU automatically (which they have been considering for a few years after being dead set against it beforehand) but very much unlikely to happen ever. Besides, the language barrier would be problematic, although given that people on the mainland have trouble understanding me when I'm there, even though I speak the same language, it wouldn't be an impenetrable problem.
Posted by: steve201 21st September 2014, 12:25 AM
Great article -
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-forty-five/#more-5089
Posted by: Cassandra 21st September 2014, 01:57 AM
God Charlie how dare you suggest people in UNIONS ARE DINOSAURS
Posted by: ¿ REY CARLOS ? 21st September 2014, 07:30 AM
Oh god, it's like I got to conference early.
Posted by: Cassandra 21st September 2014, 11:32 AM
I'm not going this year so I'm DOSING UP WHILE I CAN
I feel like the one child in the class who isn't going on the school trip.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 21st September 2014, 02:56 PM
Here's an equally interesting blog written about the 'cult of the yes campaign' written by Ewan Morrison.
http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/
Posted by: Umi 21st September 2014, 03:29 PM
http://wakeupscotland.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/ewan-morrison-yes-why-i-joined-yes-and-why-i-changed-to-no/
Poring over the comments section...
"we need that hope, we can’t be scared of change or intimidated by economics … pride is worth more than money, it’s worth the sacrifice"
Hmm.
Posted by: Cassandra 21st September 2014, 03:50 PM
Pride DOESN'T PAY THE BILLS
And not paying the bills TENDS TO NOT LEAD TO PRIDE
Posted by: Cassandra 22nd September 2014, 08:25 AM
ALEX Salmond has raised the prospect of Scotland becoming independent without going through another referendum.
The First Minister, who is due to step down in November, said that a vote like last week’s is “only one of a number of routes” that could be taken.
He said that although a referendum was his preferred option, achieving a majority at the Scottish Parliament was another way of reaching his party’s goal.
Mr Salmond’s comments came as another senior party member, former deputy leader Jim Sillars, said on Twitter that a majority for the SNP in the 2016 Holyrood election would be enough to declare independence.
Mr Sillars tweeted: “Let Yes assert new indy rule – no more ref – majority votes and seats at Holyrood 2016 enough.” He later added: “What’s this about a waiting a generation – indy remains on agenda now”.
In a broadcast interview yesterday, Mr Salmond said that for most of the SNP’s history, a referendum had not been the preferred route to independence and warned that the “writing is on the wall for Westminster” after last week’s No vote.
He said: “The referendum route was one of my choosing, it was my policy. I thought that was the right way to proceed but, of course, there are a whole range of ways Scotland can improve its position in pursuit of Scottish independence.
“There is a parliamentary route where people can make their voice heard as well, so a referendum is only one of a number of routes.”
Mr Salmond said: “This is a real thing, this generational change of opinion in Scotland, and I think the writing is on the wall for Westminster. It’s a question of how fast and how far we get.”
He also ruled out taking a seat in the House of Lords after he steps down as First Minister.
“My policy is to abolish the House of Lords,” Mr Salmond said, adding that “rocks would melt with the sun” before he would “ever set foot in the House of Lords”.
Pro-Union parties accused the First Minister of wanting to “stage a coup” to achieve independence. Opponents said Mr Salmond was being “undemocratic” and wanted to ignore the will of the Scottish people expressed in last week’s referendum.
Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont said: “Having decisively lost a democratic referendum on independence, Alex Salmond is now suggesting the Nationalists can ignore the sovereign will of the Scottish people.
“His words are fundamentally undemocratic and an insult to the people of Scotland.
“Salmond may regret the result but this reaction is dangerous and wrong. Alex Salmond lost. It is not for him to try to overthrow the will of the Scottish people in some sort of coup.”
Ms Lamont called on his likely successor Nicola Sturgeon to “distance herself from these disgraceful remarks”.
She added: “While the rest of us seek reconciliation, Alex Salmond seeks more division. Scotland will not have it.”
Scottish Conservative deputy leader Jackson Carlaw said: “The First Minister’s grace in defeat barely lasted a day.
“He claimed on Friday that he accepted the outcome of what was the largest democratic vote in Scottish political history yet, going by today’s extraordinary outburst, there is anything but acceptance in the Salmond household. Instead, there is petulance, bravado and a crass finger cocked at the majority of Scots. Scotland spoke very clearly and quite decisively: the majority made clear that the ‘sovereign will’ of the people of Scotland is to remain in a UK in which further responsibilities are gdevolved to Holyrood.
“Mr Salmond misunderstood the will of the majority during the campaign and now he seeks to misrepresent it in defeat.”
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie urged Mr Salmond to “calm down and take a bit of a breather”.
He said: “On Friday, the First Minister said he would work constructively with other parties. By the time he recorded his interview on Saturday, he had changed his mind. Within hours of a result he said he gaccepted he showed that he just can’t help himself.
“The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition, former prime minister Gordon Brown and senior political figures across the parties have been clear that a No vote at the referendum will not mean no to positive change.
“The First Minister still has a real role to play in the process on more powers that is already under way, as promised. I hope that he will take some time for reflection and embrace the positive agenda for change rather than scrabbling round for a new grievance to nurse.”
Labour MSP James Kelly said: “Alex Salmond has created divisions in Scotland where there was none. Now when the nation should be healing, the retired Salmond seeks to divide Scotland further.
“He should be true to his word and accept the result. Let Scotland move on without him, rather than allow him to ferment division. Rather than speculate on how individuals voted, he should accept Scotland’s settled will. Instead of talking about tricks, he must accept that Scotland refused to be tricked into separation.”
“Scotland has spoken. Scotland will move on. The silent majority has spoken and it befits Salmond now to fall silent if he has any regard for his country at all.”
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/salmond-we-don-t-need-referendum-for-independence-1-3548270
! ! !
Posted by: popchartfreak 22nd September 2014, 10:55 AM
so much for democracy. Having tried to use patriotism to mask the rubbish economic case he put forward (and it was tosh, nothing had been thought through properly or discussed in an adult predictive way) he decides that the people of Scotland are in some way incapable of thinking for themselves over such an important issue and he can just ignore what they said cos he knows better.
Bit of a diva, really, with a fair bit of toys out of the pram sulking.
Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd September 2014, 12:31 PM
If the SNP go into the next election pledging to seek independence without a referendum and win a majority in that election then they can claim a mandate. I still think they should have a referendum but, for as long as we are without a written constitution, there is no requirement. The UK parliament could try to introduce a requirement. However, presumably the Tories would stick to their principles and only allow their Scottish MP to vote for it.
Posted by: Harve 22nd September 2014, 02:10 PM
That's shite. Plenty of people vote SNP for reasons other than independence and they're not a single issue party. And your vote for an election of one parliamentary term shouldn't decide something like that.
Posted by: popchartfreak 22nd September 2014, 02:22 PM
they've just had a referendum, that was firmly answered so having an election (with presumably a much-lower turnout) would hardly be a convincing case for going against the wishes of the majority of the Scottish people. They would purely be relying on voter apathy to get the result they didn't get in a fair democratic way. The UK (and Scotland) would no doubt see that for what it is: sour grapes, stroppy sore-losers and manipulating politics to suit their own agenda regardless of all the other important issues people will be voting on. looks like even promises of major changes in favour of Scotland aren't even being considered an option for the Scottish public to have an opinion on.
If turnout is 45% and they get 60% of the vote that's still not in anyway a mandate to over-rule the democratic will of the people where 55% of the country have already shown they don't see a convincing case for it. Why bother having a referendum in the first place if you have no intention of accepting the result if it goes against you?
(I'm pretty sure the rest of the UK would have accepted the democratic will of the people had it gone the other way, not refused to acknowledge it and say, Nah we'll wait till the next general election results are through before we decide whether you can go independent or not.)
Posted by: Cassandra 22nd September 2014, 02:37 PM
It's utterly fucking disgraceful that only three days have passed since the result, which they said they would honour, and they're already speculating how to get independence through without the people of Scotland telling them they don't want independence. Shameless.
Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd September 2014, 03:47 PM
Under our system any party that wins a majority are able to claim a mandate for everything in their manifesto, particularly anything that formed a major part of their campaign. It's a nonsense but that's the way it works.
Posted by: steve201 22nd September 2014, 11:32 PM
It's also shameless how the PM reacted to the referendum result with his party political response when he was supposed to be being prime ministerial and speaking for the whole nation. And a quote by Jim Sillars in that article was like me quoting someone like Ian Lavery or John McDonnell saying that they think the railways should be forced back into nationalisation and sayings it's official policy of the Mlibandites in the Labour leadership.
I did thoroughly enjoy his answer to him becoming a member of the Lords though
Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd September 2014, 11:39 PM
I did thoroughly enjoy his answer to him becoming a member of the Lords though
Precisely. It was also clear in an interview with The Observer on Sunday that Cameron did not brief Ed Miliband on what he was going to say. That is a breach of the usual protocol.
Posted by: popchartfreak 23rd September 2014, 10:33 AM
Cameron is runnin' scared, he can see the electoral writing on the wall....
Posted by: Silas 24th September 2014, 12:33 PM
You can all calm your tits. Nicola has confirmed that we would only seek freedom through a majority yes vote at a second referendum in her speech declaring intention to run. Given that she's gonna be unopposed we can take that with more weight than what Salmond was bullshitting about
Posted by: Danny 24th September 2014, 01:36 PM
There was an article in the Guardian at the weekend which suggested she was going to pretty much give up on independence and just push for full devo-max (rather than the feeble version currently offered by the Westminster parties).
Posted by: Silas 24th September 2014, 01:55 PM
I've just watched her intention to run speech (worth a watch) and she is not giving up on freedom but is respecting that the country said No at this moment in time and will then push for as much as she can get.
Really like that her first move, today, is writing to Cameron to demand control over our elections so 16 and 17 year olds will keep the vote up here. In return she fully commits the SNP to their little devolution timetable and commission.
Posted by: Suedehead2 24th September 2014, 01:58 PM
I can see why Sturgeon is trying to keep votes for 16- and 17-year-olds. After all, it would appear that they voted in the same sort of huge numbers as everybody else so it would be a shame to tell most of them that they cannot vote next May. However, I don't like the idea of different rules for different parts of the country in the same election.
There have been calls for the vote to be extended to all 16-and 17-year-olds in time for May but I'm not sure how practical that is. If schools play a major part in the registration process then it might be achievable.
Posted by: popchartfreak 24th September 2014, 04:05 PM
I agree, doubt it's practical by the time of the next election, but we'll see.
Previous, Not sure how I feel about the notion that independence is "freedom". Not as if the rest of the UK is shackling the poor hard-done by Scots to hard Labour, they've chosen (for now) to agree to continue to form part of the same country in a partnership that has produced far more Scottish leaders pro rata for all political parties over the last 30 years (and therefore had that bit more pull pro rata). The Labour party has had 10 out of 22 Scottish-born leaders, 3 of the last 4 elected leaders. 2 of 5 leaders of the Lib Dems, or 4 of 7 if you count the 2 leaders joint pre-merger. Only the Tories average one Scottish-leader a century or 2 Scottish-born out of the last, call it 20, or about 10%. That's pretty influential for 10% population.....
Posted by: Silas 24th September 2014, 04:23 PM
Freedom is easier to spell on my phone than independence given that I can't actually spell that word without spell check (Hai Dyslexia) and my phone likes to auto-correct it into something entirely different. 
So lets not read more into it than a word of convenience.
I think Nicola wants to give the vote to 16-17 year olds at our elections so for May 2016 and not May 2015. She mentioned it as she was talking about the Scottish Parliament gaining control over it's own elections, which to me referred to the Holyrood election exclusively. The referendum showed that we can actually pull off the administration of a vote, one that broke the Scottish record for turn out, so there is no real reason (now that we've proven we can do it, not that there was much of a reason before hand) why we can't administer the election to the Scottish Parliament.
Same goes for Wales and Northern Ireland. Each devolved government should have the right to organise and stage it's own elections instead of relying on westminster for everything.
Posted by: Silas 24th September 2014, 04:32 PM
On the wider issue of 16 & 17 year olds. There appears to me to be rumblings from down south that some parties would support lowering the age to 16 from 18 after the success of the Referendum.
Personally, I believe that it's a wonderful idea provided it goes hand in hand with a neutral, well structured education around 14/15 yrs old on our Parliament, why voting is important, who the parties in the current House of Commons are (including the likes of DUP/SNP/PC) along with where to find their most recent manifesto and the basics of devolution (for England) or for Cym/NI/Sco how their parliaments work and how votes are cast differently. Along with any info on parties not in Westminster.
Posted by: Suedehead2 24th September 2014, 04:58 PM
Reducing the voting age to 16 has been Lib Dem policy for as long as I can remember. Ed Miliband said in his speech yesterday that a Labour government would introduce it so there is a good chance that it will happen.
Posted by: popchartfreak 24th September 2014, 07:30 PM
Good to see other parties adopting Lib-dem policies
Posted by: !Khimaros! 24th September 2014, 08:32 PM
Freedom?
Scotland already has it.
Too much Braveheart?
Also not sure why 16 year olds couldn't vote sooner to be honest, despite the fact they are, scientifically, easier to persuade due to their reasoning centres still developing and, of course, a shallower knowledge base of elections, etc, due to not being alive as long. However, I still think it's a great idea.
Posted by: Cassandra 24th September 2014, 09:19 PM
I still think votes for 16 year olds is an utterly dreadful idea. If it were starting again from scratch I'd even probably argue voting age should be set at 21, though obviously that's a non-starter given 18's now established.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 24th September 2014, 09:36 PM
I (despite what I said about the referendum and its quite cynical move to include 16+17 year-old voters) am actually for lowering the voting age to 16. If we want more young people to become motivated to want to make the world a better place, and become active and engaged with politics, then surely giving them a voice will help in a big way.
I don't think I was educated, or probably mature enough to make an informed choice at 16, but others undoubtably are - and I don't think we should deny them that right.
Posted by: !Khimaros! 24th September 2014, 09:40 PM
I was against including them in the referendum for the sleazy and political reasoning behind that decision, but then against most things about the YEs campaign were sleazy and dreadful, matching Salmond's personality to a T, I'd say.
Posted by: Suedehead2 24th September 2014, 09:54 PM
The only opinion poll I saw which showed how 16- and 17-year-olds intended to vote showed them to be firmly against independence (or freedom if you are Silas).
Posted by: Cassandra 24th September 2014, 09:57 PM
There was the Ashcroft demographic analysis which got reported a lot which showed a 72:28 split for 16/17 year olds in favour of independence. Unfortunately, most people reporting it neglected to mention that it was based on the responses of 14 16-17 year olds.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 24th September 2014, 09:59 PM
Oops, I did not see that it was only 14!
n not equal to or greater than 30 makes it statistically meaningless of course (and me quite sad that it was even reported). Of course that doesn't change the fact that Alex Salmond most likely expected that age group would be more likely to vote yes.
Posted by: Cassandra 24th September 2014, 10:26 PM
n not equal to or greater than 30 makes it statistically meaningless of course (and me quite sad that it was even reported). Of course that doesn't change the fact that Alex Salmond most likely expected that age group would be more likely to vote yes.
n ≤ 50 isn't it?
And yeah, it makes me boil. Particularly as you had those vile 'we are the 45%' lot going on about how the elderly had robbed the kids of their future etc. on the basis of one shoddy report.
Posted by: Silas 24th September 2014, 10:28 PM
They could actually work out exactly who voted for what. I'd be really interested in seeing the actual vote breakdown between ages.
City of Glasgow Council today revealed that in all 8 Glasgow Holyrood constituencies the Yes vote won.
Posted by: !Khimaros! 24th September 2014, 10:31 PM
City of Glasgow Council today revealed that in all 8 Glasgow Holyrood constituencies the Yes vote won.
Irrelevant.
Posted by: Cassandra 24th September 2014, 11:00 PM
Not quite. It is a secret ballot!
Posted by: Silas 24th September 2014, 11:04 PM
Is it shit. Your number gets written down next to the ballot paper you're given. How else do you think they found the 10 fraudulent votes in Glasgow so easily and quickly? They looked out for specific numbers.
Would not be too difficult to work backwards from those numbers to see who voted Yes and who voted No.
Posted by: ¿ REY CARLOS ? 24th September 2014, 11:24 PM
Well the Lib Dems have stopped doing it, so someone's got to.
Posted by: Kärenfanghoney 25th September 2014, 12:39 AM
Would not be too difficult to work backwards from those numbers to see who voted Yes and who voted No.
Yeah, it's okay to use polling numbers to trace lost or fraudulent votes. It's the absolute HEIGHT of illegality (and electoral immorality) to try and breach the secret ballot! There's a reason we use the British Election Study for these things.
Posted by: popchartfreak 25th September 2014, 09:30 AM
It's also ageist. Assuming people change their voting habits due to being older or younger. The main reason for changing parties is feeling economically disadvantaged or unrepresented, and that appears to match up with the results.
Posted by: popchartfreak 25th September 2014, 09:33 AM
Yes, maybe they should rebrand themselves as New Libdem and adopt Tory policies. Oh, hang on, that's been done already...
Posted by: Doctor Blind 25th September 2014, 10:02 AM
Yes. It's pretty much what the Liberal Democrats have been doing for the past 4 1/2 years, and why they are polling at lows of just 7% currently.
Posted by: steve201 25th September 2014, 11:39 AM
You seem to only see one side of view here.
Yes Alex Salmond wanted 16/17 year olds added to the poll (because he thought they would be more likely to vote yes) but this was a collective agreement called "The Edinburgh Agreement" where Cameron & Salmond made an agreement on the question and nature of the ref so they came to an agreement that the voting age would be lowered because cameron refused to have devo max as an option to kill the independence option stone dead if the vote was No. As we have seen he agreed to devo max a week before the poll out of sheer panic. Basically politically once again cameron played a blinder politically and showed him to be a poor politican.
Posted by: popchartfreak 25th September 2014, 04:51 PM
Except that they aren't adopting Tory policies, they have been accepting some through necessity in a joint Tory government. I expect them to do the same when/if Labour don't get that full majority either, (and especially if UKIP dig into both Labour and Tory seats). Then they can get criticised for giving up policy manifestos in favour of some of the Labour manifesto. Happily, reducing the voting age to 16 won't be a sticking ground, it seems.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 25th September 2014, 05:08 PM
I expect a hung parliament in 2015, but I really don't think the Liberal Democrats will be in power again - how can they be with such low voter support?
Minority government will be favoured by Labour (less so by Tories), and I expect there is even the possibility of a small majority for Labour should UKIP decimate the Tories support.
Posted by: popchartfreak 25th September 2014, 05:17 PM
well you may be right about the Lib dem support being so low as to be irrelevant, but then again a minority government could be much worse, as they would get nothing difficult through, the only changes would be cross-party MOR ones, or else in effect even if not in government relying on LibDem policies not being a million miles away from Labour's and assuming they won't vote against crucial ones. LibDems of course, not really being a position to not stick to the manifesto once not in government to avoid any further sell-out claims.
Posted by: ¿ REY CARLOS ? 25th September 2014, 08:09 PM
That's on the assumption that Labour would want to introduce policy too radically lefty for the Greens, the SNP or Plaid. There's quite a lot of things which the party isn't pushing now for fear of losing suburban target seats under the knowledge that even if we fall short of a majority the nationalists will vote along social democratic principles even without a full coalition.
Posted by: Suedehead2 25th September 2014, 08:52 PM
The Lib Dems will be asked at the next election which coalition policies they would be happy to reverse. They have already indicated that they would support abolition of secret courts, the bedroom tax and elected PCCs which is an encouraging start. At least two of those three should make a deal with Labour easier to negotiate.
Of course the Tories should be asked the same questions but I doubt they will be. Therefore, they won't be asked whether they will, for example, continue the pupil premium.
Posted by: ¿ REY CARLOS ? 25th September 2014, 09:16 PM
Of course the Tories should be asked the same questions but I doubt they will be. Therefore, they won't be asked whether they will, for example, continue the pupil premium.
Last two are Labour policy (which makes me even more exasperated that we need a by-election in South Yorkshire for someone who'll have a job for a few months, but hey ho).
Posted by: Suedehead2 25th September 2014, 09:33 PM
They are the two I had in mind.
I suspect the Lib Dem negotiators thought elected PCCs were relatively harmless and not worth making much of a fuss about. The Tories were determined to get them through so it was probably seen as a reasonably cheap concession by the Lib Dems. If they had known how low the turnout would be they may have made more effort to get the policy dropped.
The whole idea of elected PCCs was always rubbish but the rule on filling a vacancy made it even worse. It is very easy to trigger a by-election within a couple months of a vacancy arising. That seems to have been an over-reaction to the fact that there are no rules governing when a parliamentary by-election has to be held. There is a convention that it should be held within three months but there are no specific rules.
Posted by: Kärenfanghoney 25th September 2014, 10:21 PM
What's ageist about that? It's pretty well recognised that voting habits evolve during age. There's a reason for the old 'socialist at 20, conservative at 40' adage.
Posted by: ¿ REY CARLOS ? 26th September 2014, 10:10 AM
I suspect the Lib Dem negotiators thought elected PCCs were relatively harmless and not worth making much of a fuss about. The Tories were determined to get them through so it was probably seen as a reasonably cheap concession by the Lib Dems. If they had known how low the turnout would be they may have made more effort to get the policy dropped.
The whole idea of elected PCCs was always rubbish but the rule on filling a vacancy made it even worse. It is very easy to trigger a by-election within a couple months of a vacancy arising. That seems to have been an over-reaction to the fact that there are no rules governing when a parliamentary by-election has to be held. There is a convention that it should be held within three months but there are no specific rules.
I don't actually begrudge the PCCs concession much, direct democracy has its merits (even if the police force isn't a great example) and like you said it's a fairly minor issue.
Posted by: popchartfreak 26th September 2014, 11:17 AM
It's the whole principle of categorizing people into convenient groups that can be targeted and packaged that I object to. The idea that someone who's, say 56, is going to be less-left-wing than someone who's 25 and well-off is a nonsense. I think it's more to with having more to consider (eg mortgages and a kids) than actual age, plus more life experiences to draw on so there's a bit of "i've heard it all before and that's never been delivered".
Posted by: Kärenfanghoney 26th September 2014, 11:38 AM
It's heuristics. 'On average x group tends to be more y' isn't an especially offensive thing to say so long as you aren't assuming everyone in x is y or imply that we should treat that group in a worse way because of their general support for y.
Posted by: Silas 26th September 2014, 01:19 PM
It's a statistical analysis not a secret police state targeting those who voted no
Posted by: Kärenfanghoney 26th September 2014, 01:37 PM
Statistical analysis of general elections doesn't violate the secret ballot by trying to match polling numbers to votes, it doesn't need to do it with this either. The second you legitimise any state action allowing them to know who voted for what, what then stops demands to use that information in future - or indeed, lets voters vote the way they want to safe in the knowledge nobody else will ever have to know? We know it isn't a secret police state targeting those who voted No - but would a particularly paranoid or ill-informed Yes or No voter have voted the same way as they did if they believed the government could know and that there could be repercussions?
It lets a genie out of the bottle for the sake of something that we've gotten by perfectly fine using other forms of data (such as exit polls and extensive surveying by the British Election Study) in the past.
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services