Britain - The Official Thread

[Touring Mars]

Likewise, I think it deeply unfair that England has no say in Scottish politics but that Scotland has a say in policies which for the most part affect England.

So long as Scotland is part of the UK, and England doesn't have a devolved parliament in the same way as Scotland has, then this will remain an issue - but how much of an issue is it really? Thus far, the SNP have held a policy of not voting on English-only matters, but the independence referendum has led to a renewed focus on the fact that Scottish and English affairs are very closely linked (that, of course, is what being a United Kingdom entails) and what constitutes an English-only matter is highly debatable.

Those who seek to marginalize non-English MPs at Westminster are playing right into the hands of nationalists as they are basically saying that the current system of UK-wide government is somehow unfair and that separate regions should be allowed to decide for themselves what happens in said regions... which is pretty much what the SNP have been saying (and doing) all along. I'm not a fan of Scottish independence, but I am in favour of devolution - I don't think English votes for English laws is a bad idea per se, but it must be done in such a way as to clearly delineate what is a devolved matter and what isn't - which cannot be done without proper devolution across the UK (including England) as far as I can see.

Attempting to limit the power of non-English MPs at Westminster would have the effect of calling into question the very legitimacy of Westminster and of democracy itself in the UK - a very high price to pay for such little effect.

 

[Liquid]

It isn't Ireland, Wales or Scotland's fault that England directly incorporated four other countries into its own parliament without safeguarding itself. Frankly, I think this is historical arrogance which exposes the British Westminster system somewhat.

Devolved powers are grand. All four of us ought to have them. The less power Westminster has, the better.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

I'd also agree that you need devolution, but I think it's something that needs to be approached with a fair degree of caution. I do not like the idea that the more devolved powers you have, the better it must be. Whilst it probably does hold in many cases that Westminster doesn't have a clue and you're better off giving the job to locals, it also appears to be true the other way round. One example is here more money is spent per head on healthcare than elsewhere in the UK, but our hospitals, going by the winter A&E figures, are performing significantly worse. The situation will be massively more complicated than that of course, but things like that (of which there are many) do suggest political ineptitude works both ways.

Even aside from that though I feel that devolving powers only makes total sense with things that need local/regional consideration. So like with education here we need space in our curriculum for dealing with community divide at the teaching level; and there's a case being made for control over corporation tax being given to us because we face competition from the lower rate in Ireland which the rest of the UK doesn't. But then something like voter registration is entirely handed off to our electoral office, which I don't really understand because I don't know of anything unique about registering here. Incidentally our system is now out of step with the new individual-based online system in Eng/Sco/Wal.

But hey, Northern Ireland is a particularly special case when it comes to politics.................my favourite thing is how Scotland has been getting flak lately over how much money is given to their assembly, but it's gone under the radar that we get given even more money per head and we are about to get an extra 2 billion quid in loans too. Suckers

 

[Liquid]

Cardiff certainly isn't 'local' for me at all but I'd sooner be run by crooked degenerates based in Cardiff than in London.

 

[Christian_C]

Funny, It seems only a few months ago, you were all telling us how much you loved us Scots, & how you wanted us to stay & play our part in the UK. It now seems that what you meant was we were to keep quiet & not try & actually have any influence.

incidentally England does have a massive say in Scottish politics - that's how we have one Tory MP & a Tory led government.

Boot's an the ather foot now, aye?

Actually not at all!

If I'd have actually been able to vote (But I couldn't since I'm not a Scot obviously) I would have voted for you to leave. You're welcome to keep yourselves to yourselves as far as I'm concerned.

The SNP has absolutely no interest in the those of us in England so equally why should I have any interest in the SNP forming a coalition government which directly impacts me.

Similarly, why is it right that I must pay for my degree but Scots do not?

Either everyone has the same rules or everyone rules themselves is how I look at it. If you wanted to rule yourselves you should have gone ahead and done it but you didn't so you should keep your SNP to your national parliament as far as I'm concerned.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Actually not at all!

If I'd have actually been able to vote (But I couldn't since I'm not a Scot obviously) I would have voted for you to leave. You're welcome to keep yourselves to yourselves as far as I'm concerned.

The SNP has absolutely no interest in the those of us in England so equally why should I have any interest in the SNP forming a coalition government which directly impacts me.

Similarly, why is it right that I must pay for my degree but Scots do not?

Either everyone has the same rules or everyone rules themselves is how I look at it. If you wanted to rule yourselves you should have gone ahead and done it but you didn't so you should keep your SNP to your national parliament as far as I'm concerned.

I'm English...

 

[Christian_C]

I'm English...

How could I know that, your previous comment makes no sense to me at all now.

 

[Liquid]

Similarly, why is it right that I must pay for my degree but Scots do not?

Devolved powers. England doesn't have the same powers. Complain to your MP about it.

Also, to be accurate, only Scottish people studying in Scotland are exempt from tuition fees. Not Scottish people studying anywhere out of Scotland, or non-Scots studying in Scotland.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How could I know that, your previous comment makes no sense to me at all now.

It was an attempt at a humourous observation that some of the things you were complaining about may be seen the other way around by Scots.

Paying for your degree? Jus dae wa @Liquid said.

 

[jackargent]

Actually not at all!

If I'd have actually been able to vote (But I couldn't since I'm not a Scot obviously) I would have voted for you to leave. You're welcome to keep yourselves to yourselves as far as I'm concerned.

The SNP has absolutely no interest in the those of us in England so equally why should I have any interest in the SNP forming a coalition government which directly impacts me.

Similarly, why is it right that I must pay for my degree but Scots do not?

Either everyone has the same rules or everyone rules themselves is how I look at it. If you wanted to rule yourselves you should have gone ahead and done it but you didn't so you should keep your SNP to your national parliament as far as I'm concerned.

It's called democracy.



Are you suggesting the SNP should not be allowed to stand in Westminster elections?

 

[KSaiyu]

What are these 4 countries you guys speak of. I didn't know anything existed past the elephant graveyard on the other side of the M25

 

[TRGTspecialist]

It's called democracy.

Not sure if this is what either of you were getting at (sorry if it wasn't) but a Lab/SNP coalition wouldn't be democratic in my opinion (nor would any coalition for that matter).

 

[TenEightyOne]

A Lab/SNP coalition wouldn't be democratic in my opinion (nor would any coalition for that matter).

Why not, if it reflects a make-up from the vote winners (the lack of PR aside)?

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Why not, if it reflects a make-up from the vote winners (the lack of PR aside)?

It reflects a make-up, but have the public voted for coalition? I don't believe you can say for sure they have simply because the option doesn't appear on the ballot paper; no one can give a mandate for some collection of parties to govern on some collection of policies/pledges because no one knows what either collection will be.

Perhaps it's not realistic, but it just strikes me as not quite right that coalitons aren't subject to something like a referendum so they can truly seek a mandate. Take the most extreme example, a Tory/Labour coalition........ it'd be the biggest and most representative government ever (outside wartime), but I doubt you'd find many voters supporting it!

 

[TenEightyOne]

But if each seat returns their MP then that's their representation, no?

If the next parliament is hung then Cameron will be PM by convention but in other cases the strongest coalition partner provides the Prime Minister. The cabinet will still be made up of members of the full coalition though.

Arguably a coalition is exactly what the people ask for if no single party is given a clear majority, and remember that it's the Members who vote on the floor, not just the Cabinet.

 

[TenEightyOne]

A talking dog (not Amanda Holden) is causing controversy on a popular talent show called "Britain's Got Stupider" (or similar).

I remember a dog that could say "sausages", or was that Esther Rantzen?

 

[TRGTspecialist]

But if each seat returns their MP then that's their representation, no?

It's one part of it - constituency representation - but then our election decides the governing party at the same time (which I'd argue is a slightly different matter), and that representation is less clear.

The cabinet will still be made up of members of the full coalition though.

With a formal coalition yes although Labour have ruled this out with the SNP; so I'd guess any pact/deal between them will be strictly policy/voting support and not involve cabinet members.

Arguably a coalition is exactly what the people ask for if no single party is given a clear majority, and remember that it's the Members who vote on the floor, not just the Cabinet.

I see a hung parliament as the public have not given a mandate for any party to govern (precisely because it's the members who vote, so you require majority) - a special case scenario rather than an option the public have asked for. Although we're perhaps just on either side of the same coin with that. But the public asking for coalition? Hmm, I just don't think I can be swung on that. If it's not on the ballot it can't be something the public can ask for in my opinion - with the exception of spoiling ballots, and only because we haven't got a "None of them" option yet, sadly...............


The funny thing about this election though is that with the race being so close, the negotiations will be complicated, and there's every chance that the legitimacy of any coalition formed may be called into question. So maybe it's going to come down to one woman who will decide the fate of the nation......

 

[jackargent]

Or to look at the other side of the coin, how democratic is it that a party with 35% of the vote forms the government?
This is what happened in 2005. (& since turnout was only 61% it means the government was actually elected by less than 22% of those entitled to vote.)
No party since 1945 has ever actually got to 50% of votes case. First Past the Post is deeply undemocratic. It worked pretty well when there were only two parties of any size. Now there are 5 parties with over 5% support (6 in Scotland & Wales) it is completely unfit for purpose.
Labour & the Tories have by & large resisted attempts to reform it because it has worked to their benefit. Now that it is becoming more & more likely that it will not work to their benefit this time, perhaps at last we will get a change.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Or to look at the other side of the coin, how democratic is it that a party with 35% of the vote forms the government?
This is what happened in 2005. (& since turnout was only 61% it means the government was actually elected by less than 22% of those entitled to vote.)
No party since 1945 has ever actually got to 50% of votes case. First Past the Post is deeply undemocratic. It worked pretty well when there were only two parties of any size. Now there are 5 parties with over 5% support (6 in Scotland & Wales) it is completely unfit for purpose.
Labour & the Tories have by & large resisted attempts to reform it because it has worked to their benefit. Now that it is becoming more & more likely that it will not work to their benefit this time, perhaps at last we will get a change.

There was a referendum on PR shortly after the last General Election. The issue was heavily fudged in the media by the Conservatives (who, with the lowest-density constituncies, have the most to fear from PR). After weeks of explanations of what-happens-if-you-vote-for-Smokey-Bacon-crisps and some terrifying One Show mathematics the public spoke with their poll absences.

There was a time limit imposed before another PR referendum could be held, I presume the Conservatives set it at something like A Million Years. At the same time they introduced a rule to prevent their parliament from being dissolved and to give them a 5 year term. Clever, right?

 

[Liquid]

There is an innate problem with Gerrymandering and people in power wanting to retain that power. It's going to be difficult to convince fat cats with snouts in the trough to give that sort of thing up.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Or to look at the other side of the coin, how democratic is it that a party with 35% of the vote forms the government?
This is what happened in 2005. (& since turnout was only 61% it means the government was actually elected by less than 22% of those entitled to vote.)
No party since 1945 has ever actually got to 50% of votes case. First Past the Post is deeply undemocratic. It worked pretty well when there were only two parties of any size. Now there are 5 parties with over 5% support (6 in Scotland & Wales) it is completely unfit for purpose.
Labour & the Tories have by & large resisted attempts to reform it because it has worked to their benefit. Now that it is becoming more & more likely that it will not work to their benefit this time, perhaps at last we will get a change.

Oh I won't dispute any of that - I've only been talking about the legitimacy of coalition, not the voting system (and my beef isn't one of the things PR solves anyway). Although to take 2005, at least you can actually say that 35% of the turnout voted for that government...........whilst in 2010 exactly 0% voted for a LibCon coalition. So I guess I'd say it's the lesser of two evils...............

There was a referendum on PR shortly after the last General Election. The issue was heavily fudged in the media by the Conservatives (who, with the lowest-density constituncies, have the most to fear from PR). After weeks of explanations of what-happens-if-you-vote-for-Smokey-Bacon-crisps and some terrifying One Show mathematics the public spoke with their poll absences.

Another thing about that was the referendum was on the Alternative Vote, which I don't know about but have read is a pretty bad form of PR, and so put off pro-PR people from voting.

At the same time they introduced a rule to prevent their parliament from being dissolved and to give them a 5 year term. Clever, right?

I don't know anything about what happened with dissolution but enforcing the fixed terms was a good idea - will stop parties strategically calling elections early to maximise their time in government.

 

[jackargent]

Oh I won't dispute any of that - I've only been talking about the legitimacy of coalition, not the voting system (and my beef isn't one of the things PR solves anyway). Although to take 2005, at least you can actually say that 35% of the turnout voted for that government...........whilst in 2010 exactly 0% voted for a LibCon coalition. So I guess I'd say it's the lesser of two evils...............

Now I'm not a big fan of the Tory /Libdem coalition but at least if you add their votes up you actually get to over 50%, so there is an argument that this has been the most legitimate post war government.

Moving to PR is not a perfect solution. It would for example mean lots of UKIP MP's which , in my view, is a Bad Thing. But, much as I despise them, if 15% of people vote for them, it is clearly a nonsense that they get less than 1% of the MP's.

 

[KSaiyu]

Anything but a Labour/SNP coalition please, I don't want to be working in an NHS Wales in the future thank you very much.

 

[Liquid]

Quick question: You might not agree with all of what they stand for but are there any British politicians you like?

 

[Roger the Horse]

When I'm installed as dictator there will be.

In seriousness, Ed Milliband seems like a smart guy who isn't David Cameron. I respect him for that. Like him? that's another matter...

 

[PeterJB]

In a dream world I'd like to see the Greens in power. But even though they have soared in popularity over the past few months, I think it's unlikely that they'll get a majority. I can settle for a Labour majority though, anything but a Tory/UKIP coalition.

 

[Spurgy 777]

In a dream world I'd like to see the Greens in power. But even though they have soared in popularity over the past few months, I think it's unlikely that they'll get a majority. I can settle for a Labour majority though, anything but a Tory/UKIP coalition.

Sounds more like a nightmare and a very good way to ruin the country

 

[MatskiMonk]

In a dream world I'd like to see the Greens in power. But even though they have soared in popularity over the past few months, I think it's unlikely that they'll get a majority. I can settle for a Labour majority though, anything but a Tory/UKIP coalition.

The greens.. m'eh. Some good sentiments, but I don't understand how they plan to cover the cost of their policies - whilst maintaining their "fair share" ideal. Also, who says what's fair?

 

[Scaff]

Interesting....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-strongest-Where-there-are-no-immigrants.html

....seems that the areas of strongest UKIP support are those with some of the lowest levels of immigration.

 

[Lizard]

Ed Milliband seems like a smart guy.

Saw him today. Yes he does. He also has a brilliant sense of humour.
The media were doing a game of lets ask the same question and be meaningless. This was a case of the question was asked, Ed answered it and then every other news station asked the same damn question.