UK - Election 2015

MikeG said:
... If the Scots Nats really do end up being pretty much the sole representatives from Scotland in Westminster then it will be trivially easy for them to manufacture something to fall out over ...
Click to expand...
They will find it supremely easy, but they won't need to "manufacture" it. It's being manufactured for them by UK politicians and the tabloid press even before the election has taken place, whatever its outcome may be.
 
CapelDodger said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_London

The current mayoralty is a new institution, held only by Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson. They are the rule.
Click to expand...
Yes, but as Mike said, Ken ran the first time as an independent; Labour didn't want him. After he had creamed the Labour candidate in that first election, there was no way that Labour could refuse him to stand as Labour candidate in the subsequent three elections.
 
anglolawyer said:
Oh, I see. I wonder what would count as a purely English question then? Health, education, that type of thing?
Click to expand...
Presumably in the sense of these areas devolved to Scotland, Wales, and NI.

Oh, I'll tell you what I am not in favour of - layer upon layer of superfluous tiers of government. I don't believe there is a big demand for local democracy in the UK anyway, not judging by the local election turnout anyway.
Click to expand...
An English Parliament could be achieved by simply having only English MPs in the chamber. That would, of course, throw the "layer upon layer of superfluous tiers of government" in Scotland, Wales, and NI into sharper relief.
 
Information Analyst said:
An English Parliament could be achieved by simply having only English MPs in the chamber. That would, of course, throw the "layer upon layer of superfluous tiers of government" in Scotland, Wales, and NI into sharper relief.
Click to expand...
But only for England such a pragmatic solution is possible. Of the 650 seats in the Commons, 533 are English, 59 Scottish, 40 Welsh and 18 Northern Irish. Those numbers are simply too small to make a parliament.
 
The latest hoarding poster I have seen (this morning) shows Alex Salmond pickpocketing a member of the public with a suitable Conservative comment about how the SNP will 'demand' 24 billion (I think it was) to work with Labour.

Besides the silliness of it, I have been struck during this campaign at the sums being bandied around about how much the other side is going to cost the public - X billion here, Y billion there. The net result, as far as I am concerned is that I don't actually believe either of them.
 
Information Analyst said:
Presumably in the sense of these areas devolved to Scotland, Wales, and NI.


An English Parliament could be achieved by simply having only English MPs in the chamber. That would, of course, throw the "layer upon layer of superfluous tiers of government" in Scotland, Wales, and NI into sharper relief.
Click to expand...

The legislature is only one arm of government and maybe not the most important one. Should we also bar Scottish MPs from cabinet meetings and Scottish civil servants from policy formation and administration?
 
anglolawyer said:
The legislature is only one arm of government and maybe not the most important one. Should we also bar Scottish MPs from cabinet meetings and Scottish civil servants from policy formation and administration?
Click to expand...
As you please. How do things work in federal polities? While you're thinking about that, another comedy interlude.
 
ddt said:
But only for England such a pragmatic solution is possible. Of the 650 seats in the Commons, 533 are English, 59 Scottish, 40 Welsh and 18 Northern Irish. Those numbers are simply too small to make a parliament.
Click to expand...
Scotland, Wales and N Ireland already have Parliaments. England is the exception. The mere six counties of N Ireland had a Parliament from 1921, with a huge degree of autonomy. This never prevented N Irish MPs from participating in the business of Westminster. Moreover, the conservatives did not question the legitimacy of their presence. On the contrary:
Up until 1974 the UUP was affiliated with the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations, and Ulster Unionist MPs sat with the Conservative Party at Westminster, traditionally taking the Conservative parliamentary whip.
Click to expand...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Unionist_Party.
 
MikeG said:
The unlikelihood of there being any Scottish Labour or Cons. cabinet ministers in the next G'ment.
Click to expand...
Not having any because of an election result, and barring them even if an election result would qualify them to participate in government, are two very different things.
 
Possibly the first thing I have ever agreed with you about in a politics thread. My point was meant to be light-hearted, not to be dissected.
 
MikeG said:
Possibly the first thing I have ever agreed with you about in a politics thread. My point was meant to be light-hearted, not to be dissected.
Click to expand...
In current discussions about the constitutional implications of these predicted election results it is impossible to distinguish light-hearted from serious, or even complete parody from serious! But thanks for the clarification.
 
The Miliband/Brand meeting looks like turning into a most embarrassing political stunt.

Apart from Sturgeon they're all looking like rank amateurs.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
The Miliband/Brand meeting looks like turning into a most embarrassing political stunt.

Apart from Sturgeon they're all looking like rank amateurs.
Click to expand...
On the contrary. They're the ones who are looking like "professionals". She's looking like an activist with a vision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom