Politics Thread!

[offyoutoddle]

Should have said - I'd guess in, for 2 factors. 1st, because I reckon people may wonder who they distrust the most, the Boys from Brussels , or the Westminster lot. 2nd, the campaign to stay in will probably speak very loudly to fears and concerns about the consequences of getting out.

[Cloudane]

Thanks for the biology lesson David Miliband! In other news your mother's always your mother, but in either case people are going to raise eyebrows if they publicly backstab and ball-kick each other

actually just some armchair crystal ball gazing here - what do we all think about the outcome of referendum on Europe - In or Out? not what do you want, what do you think will happen?

I think "in" and I want "in", I think people are better united than divided. Even Scotland saw that (barely), so I think we will all see the same with Europe. But, as we've seen, you can't necessarily predict what'll happen in politics. A lot of people are tired of the "nanny state" aspects of it (nannies getting in a state over them saying how strong a vacuum cleaner can be) whilst businesses seem to be split depending on.. well, whether it benefits or hinders them. The latter for where I work, going by some of the comments our MD has made. But I don't know quite literally how many are like that - it could just be a noisy few, like the "sick of all the moslems and seagulls" lot.

Also yeah personally I trust the Brussels lot a heck of a lot more to have my interests as an individual at heart than Westminster right now.

[pogo]

Oddly holding it sooner might give a better (in) result. A mid-session referendum is more likely to turn into a plebiscite on the government in power, much like by-elections, local and EU elections often go against the government in power. So holding it sooner in theory gives it more chance of staying in.

Of course holding it sooner leaves less time to renegotiate Britain’s terms of membership of the EU. But I’ve always thought such talks are doomed to fail, or at least doomed to achieve nothing substantial. At the best of times other countries have no incentive to carve new opt-outs for the UK. And these aren’t the best of times with the EU in an existential crisis over the euro, or dealing with a crisis in the Mediterranean and N Africa, while facing an energy crisis and potentially an armed conflict due to Ukraine. There are far more important things for the EU to worry about than an internal spat within the UK conservative party.

[Wudzi]

As it's government policy to stay in, they probably want to rush it though as support to stay in looks like it's at a record high

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/05/eu ... m-lead-12/

[KlaxonCow]

The other sort of devolution needed is yes, to answer the West Lothian question, and find some way of giving English MPs exclusive say over legislation affecting only England. How to do that though is far from obvious.

It's perfectly obvious.

There needs to be an English Parliament.

Despite being popularly characterised as if it's somehow "a Scottish problem" or something intrinsically wrong with devolution itself, the West Lothian question is actually caused by the disparity and imbalance of England being "the odd one out" in all of this.

Were there an English Parliament, the issue disappears. The Scottish Parliament votes on local Scottish matters, the English Parliament votes on local English matters, the Welsh Assembly votes on local Welsh matters, etc. - and then Westminster unambiguously becomes the Parliament of the Union itself, dealing with the common shared UK-wide matters, such as defence, the EU, etc.

What is preventing us from "unblocking the logjam" here is the refusal to differentiate England from the UK. So, indeed, as the UK Parliament, Westminster, as it's currently formulated, can't differentiate English business from UK business and does not exclude non-English MPs from voting on English law.

(Indeed, somewhat the entire problem is that, as things currently stand, there is, in a legal sense, no such thing as "English law". There is the law of England and Wales, to which the Welsh Assembly has been granted some power to deviate from it in Wales and "English law" only exists in the de facto sense of practically being what remains when you subtract the Welsh exceptions from the wider law of England and Wales.)

And here's the thing. If there is going to be any "English votes for English laws" proposal, then that effectively is an English Parliament.

If you have English MPs voting exclusively on English laws, then that is, to all intents and purposes, an English Parliament, whether you choose to formally recognise it as such or not.

Where you geographically locate it - in Westminster or its own devoted building - or whether you choose to re-use the same MPs or not - just having the English Westminster MPs populate both Parliaments, in their English and UK capacities, or introduce another layer of English MPs to be devoted to the English Parliament alone - makes not an iota of difference to its functional capacity as being, in effect, an English Parliament.

So, in that regard, I'd say let us not be forced onto the back foot with a half-arsed "time sharing" solution with Westminster - shuffling MPs in and out of the chamber, when "English business" is sneaked into the Westminster scheduling somewhere, when there's a spare minute - but rather lead from the front by formally recognising that what "English votes for English laws" pragmatically means is an English Parliament.

Thus, formally recognise it as such and do it properly, because all that the rather silly pretence otherwise, with informal arrangements and use of alternative terminology, will likely achieve is simply not doing full justice to English law - as it has to compete for time and attention with Westminster's UK business (which will, by necessity of being Westminster's primary purpose and by merit of it affecting everyone, always take first priority) - and greatly confusing how Westminster operates.

In fact, pogo, you mentioned elsewhere that the idea of modernising Westminster with a new building - taking it out of the Palace of Westminster - is something you liked. Not least because, if located outside London, it could help distribute responsibility wider across the UK and de-London-centrify the country a little.

Well, two birds with one stone. A new English Parliament building - which, like the Scottish and Welsh buildings, could be designed to be thoroughly modern - could be located outside London. Place it in, say, Birmingham or Manchester and the MPs can make use of the HS2 high-speed rail that they're so keen on to make the journey between Westminster - the UK Parliament - and the new English Parliament.

(Or, if one really wanted to tackle the London-centric issue, then instead of an English Parliament, there could be English regional Parliaments - an assembly for the North, for the South East, for the West Country, etc. - to reflect the different politics within England, to distribute responsibility across the whole country and, indeed, achieve more of the "localism" that Cameron claims to approve of.)

Yes, these are effectively moves towards a federal UK.

But, again, recognise the reality that this is what we've already got - in a broken half-arsed form, because it's wholly imbalanced without England also being devolved as well - and, like I say, lead from the front to make it work properly, rather than, in denial, be forced onto the back foot with more half-arsed ad-hoc temporary solutions, until we end up in the same place anyway.

Because we either will end up a federal UK or the UK will simply cease to be. It's pretty much the only solution that can, in the long term, save the Union.

As we saw in the Scottish referendum and the general election results, the Scots will not be fobbed off. We have already come so damned close to losing the UK already with the referendum.

Cameron played a very high stakes game in refusing to allow the "devo max" option on the ballot. His strategy was clearly to make it an "all or nothing" deal, in the hopes that the prospect would scare the Scots back into the safety of the Union. It barely worked and utilising the tactics of fear to win, he implicitly sowed the seeds of that SNP clean sweep.

It is worth noting that the SNP wanted "devo max" on the ballot and it was Cameron who said "no". It's worth noting that, discussing independence, the SNP still want to remain members of the EU and remain members of NATO and so forth - they are not anti- the concept of benefiting from the advantages of Union, but are just anti- how this Union currently operates.

And you'd think the Eurosceptics would get that. Because, in effect, it's the same complaint. In that Scotland is to the UK, as the UK is to the EU. In that even the most Eurosceptical - that is, for example, Nigel Farage - are generally not against having trade and treaties and good relations with Europe. They're not against the concept of some union and the advantages it offers in general, but just the way that the EU currently operates.

When Cameron takes EU reform to Europe, this is effectively what the SNP want to bring to Westminster. Because, for the Scots (and other regions of the UK), Westminster often feels just as remote and oblivious to their needs as Brussels does.

What Cameron wants to achieve is a return of sovereignty over our own affairs here in the UK. That's exactly mirrored as what the SNP want to achieve for Scotland in the UK.

It's the same principle, the same problem, just at a different political level. If you can appreciate the one, then you can surely appreciate the other. How you feel about Europe is what Scots feel about Westminster politics.

If the Scottish referendum had been allowed to feature "devo max" on the ballot then opinion polls make clear that it would have, in fact, been the run away winner.

Scots don't really want to give up on the UK. They just want to give up on the current horrible way that it operates from Westminster. But if the choice is forced, as it was by Cameron, into an "all or nothing" then it was only barely a "no" this time and it'll likely be a "yes" next time. And if not then, then the time after that. It's only really a matter of time.

Which the referendum result should make clear is running out very quickly indeed, as it was a cat's whisker away from "sorry, too late!" as it was.

There is precedent.

When the British had their Empire, the colonies fought hard for their independence from it. But when the Empire was converted into the Commonwealth of Nations instead - from a master / slave ownership to an equal peer-to-peer union of mutual benefit - then pretty nearly every single one of the "former colonies" voluntarily signed back up to it.

Because it was not the nationality of their "owners" that ever bothered them. It was being owned by another nation, as that is entirely intolerable to the human spirit on a deep visceral level and - "sic semper tyrannis" - will never be allowed to stand unmolested, wherever it occurs.

Thus, I believe that if a proper, decently-designed federal UK system was proposed, the Scots and the Welsh would voluntarily sign back up to that. Because then it's a proper union of peers choosing, voluntarily, to work together for their mutual benefit.

This is the only real way to save the Union in the long term. Anything else won't be good enough and the UK will inevitably collapse.

And federalism is, by nature, a fair and equal solution. It isn't at the expense of England but, on the contrary, demands that England also gets its own local representation in an English Parliament too.

The solution is, in fact, perfectly obvious.

It's just that it requires Westminster to vote to have less power and control all to themselves. The old "turkeys voting for Christmas" problem, basically.

[(o)(o)]

You can't go to prison for not paying the license fee - ONLY if you refuse to pay court imposed fines.

Assuming you have the relevant connected TV equipment, since a court imposed fine of 1000 is a consequence of not paying the license fee that's splitting hairs, and of no comfort to the 1 a week jailed for it mentioned below:

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/media-cul ... secutions/

"..connected TV equipment.." is not relevant

The license fee applies only if you watch or record a live broadcast.

If fined - pretty much everyone makes the payments.

The alternative is getting banged up.

I could be wrong but I think the majority of those jailed refuse to pay on principle.

Still, you don't want to be getting a criminal record for not watching telly. So if TVL come knocking you might politely explain that live broadcasts are not viewed or recorded at the property - however making absolutely no other comments and specifically not confirming who you are. Ideally you are recording this somehow. The purpose here is 1) Not give them details to falsify a report 2) Demonstrate the you DO understand TVL 3) Clue them in to the idea there's no commission to be had here.

Alternatively you can tell them to FUCK OFF.

[pogo]

There are significant problems though with an English parliament
* No clear sense of English identity, unlike the Scots
* Any federal system of the nations would be very imbalanced with England getting its own way all the time
Devolution within England can help with the latter but if anything there’s even less appetite for that, going by recent polls on establishing devolved authorities. Plus while some regions have relatively strong and well defined identities others don’t. There are probably imaginative, or at least workable solutions to all of these problems but so far I’ve not read any.

And yes, it would help justify a new parliament buildings away from Westminster, more centrally for an English parliament, or in regional centres if there was regional devolution. The UK-wide parliament and a reformed House of Lords/Senate could also find new homes, perhaps the same one if they were merged. They might even site it in Edinburgh, which is more central geographically within the UK than London.

But I think the government will focus on another aspect of overhauling parliament first: boundary changes which were supposed to happen last parliament but were blocked by the Lib Dems, and are now long overdue. These will tackle Scotland’s (and Wales’s) overrepresentation another way by making their constituencies’ sizes more in line with those in England, at the same time as evening out variations in constituency sizes within England. As an added bonus it would (if the 2013 review is implemented) reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600.

[zip accident]

The other sort of devolution needed is yes, to answer the West Lothian question, and find some way of giving English MPs exclusive say over legislation affecting only England. How to do that though is far from obvious.

It's perfectly obvious.

There needs to be an English Parliament.

Despite being popularly characterised as if it's somehow "a Scottish problem" or something intrinsically wrong with devolution itself, the West Lothian question is actually caused by the disparity and imbalance of England being "the odd one out" in all of this.

Were there an English Parliament, the issue disappears. The Scottish Parliament votes on local Scottish matters, the English Parliament votes on local English matters, the Welsh Assembly votes on local Welsh matters, etc. - and then Westminster unambiguously becomes the Parliament of the Union itself, dealing with the common shared UK-wide matters, such as defence, the EU, etc.

What is preventing us from "unblocking the logjam" here is the refusal to differentiate England from the UK. So, indeed, as the UK Parliament, Westminster, as it's currently formulated, can't differentiate English business from UK business and does not exclude non-English MPs from voting on English law.

(Indeed, somewhat the entire problem is that, as things currently stand, there is, in a legal sense, no such thing as "English law". There is the law of England and Wales, to which the Welsh Assembly has been granted some power to deviate from it in Wales and "English law" only exists in the de facto sense of practically being what remains when you subtract the Welsh exceptions from the wider law of England and Wales.)

And here's the thing. If there is going to be any "English votes for English laws" proposal, then that effectively is an English Parliament.

If you have English MPs voting exclusively on English laws, then that is, to all intents and purposes, an English Parliament, whether you choose to formally recognise it as such or not.

Where you geographically locate it - in Westminster or its own devoted building - or whether you choose to re-use the same MPs or not - just having the English Westminster MPs populate both Parliaments, in their English and UK capacities, or introduce another layer of English MPs to be devoted to the English Parliament alone - makes not an iota of difference to its functional capacity as being, in effect, an English Parliament.

tl:dr any further

Here’s the Labour MP for Streatham on where Labour went wrong and what it should do next:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... es-we-made

Mostly obvious and sensible, though he also puts forward one idea I’ve not seen from mainstream politicians, but which I’ve advocated for before:

it is time for parliament to move out of the relic that is the Palace of Westminster and into a new, modern, accessible site fit for purpose

This has a lot to recommend it, if the site is outside London, in the Midlands for example. Obviously it would be a great boost to wherever was chosen, as well as more central and so more accessible. But it would also help address the housing problem in London and the economic imbalances associated with it. The housing problem is both a supply and a demand problem and in London the demand in large part stems from both the City and the government being based there. Not just the Commons and Lords but various departments, the head offices of other departments and branches of government. All the firms with large presences in London to be near the government. All the foreign embassies.

Of course moving people out of London does not fix the national housing shortage, but if it were accompanied by a large building programme to establish a new centre of government then it would help with the supply side too. Shame all this is very unlikely to happen, unless someone government now sees how sensible something like this would be. It could e.g. be accompanied by real constitutional reform of so the new sites were launched with new elections for a new Senate replacing the Lords for example.

So that's agreed then; an English parliament in new buildings in Brum, supervised by the British parliament in Westminster.

[(o)(o)]

So, just to summarise.

snoopers charter back on the menu
repeal the human rights act
float capital punishment (maybe)
penalise the BBC out of petty spite for not being a state mouthpiece (much as I dislike the BBC, surely they can't claim altruism on their reasons for doing this)

Did I miss anything or were they just worried we wouldn't realise the Tories were back in full force?

Fox hunting ban.

Capital punishment - I reckon that would come POST Cameron. Strong possibility he won't go the distance.

Are they looking to increase the speed limit?
I seem to recall yu are something like 13 times more likely to survive in a head on crash if you are in a Bentley vs a prole car.

[pogo]

So that's agreed then; an English parliament in new buildings in Brum, supervised by the British parliament in Westminster.

If me and KC were in charge then yes. Though I’d be happy, happier even, for the newly limited, probably smaller UK-wide parliament to go even further north, to Edinburgh say. There‘s certainly no need to keep it in London. It would be worth considering the role of the House of Lords at the same time: it too will have less to say over Scottish, English laws, and so would have less to do. It might make sense to have it become the UK-wide parliament. Then rather than powers being balanced between Commons and Lords they would be balanced between Nations/Regions and a UK Senate. That is very radical though, and I don’t know if any political party would support it.

[Ollie]

Fox hunting ban.

Yes, I'm looking forward to seeing how they're going to be handling that one whilst still pretending not to be the party of the toffs.

[Ollie]

As an added bonus it would (if the 2013 review is implemented) reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600.

That's at least 50 MPs who probably won't be voting for it, then...

[pogo]

Seems (only read about it for the first time today as it wasn’t brought up during the election battle) they plan to hold a free vote on fox hunting. Which I think means it will almost certainly fail: with the other parties surely against it it will only a handful of Tories to oppose it or abstain, and I think a fair number will, either for political reasons or because they just disagree with it.

[pogo]

As an added bonus it would (if the 2013 review is implemented) reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600.

That's at least 50 MPs who probably won't be voting for it, then...

It would have to happen at an election at which many MPs are standing down anyway, so probably all who want to continue will be able to.

The main opposition will be party political. The current constituencies favours Labour a little, the SNP and PC a lot, due to smaller constituencies which take fewer votes to win/more constituencies which return more MPs than a comparable region in England. The detailed changes are here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Per ... r_of_seats

The other parties will cry foul and accuse the Tories of gerrymandering. But it’s the current system that has built in biases, which have benefitted Labour for decades and now help the SNP, and so which is neither right nor fair.

[zip accident]

it’s the current system that has built in biases, which have benefitted Labour for decades and now help the SNP, and so which is neither right nor fair.

Bollocks, they won didn't they. They can't win and seriously complain it's rigged.