No, I suppose not. But UKIP are enthusiasts for the death penalty wherever it can be applied.
UK - Election 2015
- Thread starter The Don
- Start date
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
Perhaps. Or one in which Gadafi crushed the opposition militarily, which he was looking very likely to do. Follow-up scenarios range from not pretty to very ugly indeed, with so many mercenary forces present and all the ethnic, nationalist, and otherwise tribal loyalties involved. Plus Gadafi was a lunatic.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
And the birch. This is the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade, remember.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
No, it would require something like an Act legalising assisted suicide of lifers.
Today's collection (or more like the weekend's collection) of IMO poorly thought through policies:
Interesting to see the Conservatives playing a blinder with "English votes for English laws" which will more or less ensure that they will "rule" England no matter what the overall result of future general elections.
- Labour propose to further stoke the housing market by waiving stamp duty for first time buyers on properties up to £300k
- And they're going to impose rent controls so they can mess up the rental market at the same time
- The Lib Dems will lend you a few quid for which seems both not enough and too much at the same time
Interesting to see the Conservatives playing a blinder with "English votes for English laws" which will more or less ensure that they will "rule" England no matter what the overall result of future general elections.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
I was suggesting that it would be unlikely to be better than it is now.
There's no rule that requires English voters to vote Tory. If the Conservatives rule England and make a mess of it, they can be ejected from power by the English electorate, both in England and in the UK in general. There are about ten times as many English voters as Scottish voters.
Anyway, all this makes an English Parliament even more necessary.
Because the thing that gets most English electors all sweaty with excitement is yet another layer of government, and another set of politicians. You'd also have to think of some sort of role for the current Parliament. They wouldn't even get to design the next set of stamps now that the PO is private.
You're right there is no such rule, it's just highly that this will happen.
If we're moving down the route to a federal UK then IMO it wold make sense to have, say, 5-10 regional assemblies rather than a single English parliament.
edited to add...
As MikeG points out, it'd be (yet) another layer of government with all the same opportunities for waste and corruption so if there is going to be a federal UK, I'd like to see a layer going
Last edited:
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Royal Mail - which designs the stamps - is a separate entity to the Post Office.
Thank you. I didn't know that.
anglolawyer
Banned
We already have one, yuk, yuk
Oh, sorry, we agreed not to say that out loud, didn't we … 
Why? Surely it would make sense to have a body at the main level of regional identity? (I.e. england, rather than a merge of say Manchester and Liverpool in a vague north-western asembly)
Partly to have components of roughly equal size. That way at least there is some concept of equality of representation at the parliament level.
Partly to have components which face roughly similar challenges being able to adopt measures to address that challenge. Something which is good for London and the South East may not be good for rural areas or post-industrial areas and vice versa.
Manchester and Liverpool have more in common with each other than they have with London or Bath or Truro.
anglolawyer
Banned
They tried regional assemblies before, remember, and no one was interested.
I'm one of those who isn't interested. A federal UK only makes sense if each federal component has an identity. From that perspective, national assemblies make sense but then I'd argue the size of the English population means that the English would be under-represented compared to the other nations.
I guess we'll see whether an English Parliament has an more traction than the regional assemblies. One of the reasons why regional assemblies may not have been effective is the lack of power, they were just IMO business development agencies and not legislative bodies.
anglolawyer
Banned
I am not interested either, which distinguishes me and, I suspect, most 'English' people (I suppose I must so designate myself although, like many of us, my ancestry is not exclusively or predominantly English) from Scottish and Welsh nationalists. What we have is pretty much OK, isn't it? Regional assemblies where there is a demand for them but not otherwise.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Another way of saying Libya may not have been better off is to say that intervention achieved nothing.
The Conservatives are proposing a change. By saying "English votes for English laws" they are proposing to create an English parliament within the national parliament.
If they are successful, it's an excellent move for them, it'll ensure that they "rule" England unless there is a large shift in English political allegiance and by keeping it in the Westminster parliament it reduces the likelihood of fringe right wing parties making some headway.
angrysoba
Philosophile
In fact, even though many people weren't interested in London's devolution from the UK, it was still pushed through anyway because those who turned out to vote voted the Right WayTM.