Left wingers are getting a bit scared

[XJ Flyer]

Rovinghawk said:

XJ Flyer said:

The simple fact is you can't 'scrap' the idea of 'UK' MP's voting on UK matters

I can't see why I should want to.

XJ Flyer said:

there is no such thing as an English sovereign parliament.

Yet.

XJ Flyer said:

There's no way that the Libdems and Labour Party are going to commit political suicide by counting out all of their UK MP's in the UK parliament.

Expecting honesty & fairness from politicians? They won't choose it, Miliband has been squawking about not doing it (in a 'doing-it-sort-of-way', obviously) but they might not get the choice.

XJ Flyer said:

As it stands Cameron is just trying to put together a stitch up which gives the Cons an automatic majority in the non existent sovereign state of England.

It could be argued that he's trying to get England equal treatment to Scotland.

XJ Flyer said:

The reason why there is no sovereign English parliament being that as soon as there is the Union is effectively finished anyway.

Can you flesh out that position slightly?

Cameron is 'actually' just trying to create a situation whereby it will be easier to get through the cutbacks he'll have to make in England to keep the Scottish unionists onside.

As for fleshing out the position that there is no sovereign English parliament and if there was the Union would be finished the facts speak for themselves.So long as the union exists we will continue with the situation whereby the English are stitched up in order to hold the thing together.

[s2art]

XJ Flyer said:

As for fleshing out the position that there is no sovereign English parliament and if there was the Union would be finished the facts speak for themselves.So long as the union exists we will continue with the situation whereby the English are stitched up in order to hold the thing together.

The English currently pay a bit more than the poorer parts of the Union, because they are a bit richer. I dont recall ever feeling 'stitched up' that some of my tax money went to poor areas of Wales or N.I. because I feel its value for money to retain a united Britain, for a variety of reasons including defense and reducing the chance that the S.E. will come under increasing pressure to house what would effectively economic migrants from various corners of the British Isles. WE have been in a transfer union for a long time, no different to the federal USA or Canada, because it works better than the alternative.

[Asterix]

XJ Flyer said:

As it stands Cameron is just trying to put together a stitch up which gives the Cons an automatic majority in the non existent sovereign state of England.

Just out of curiosity - having a glance at this map of England, who do you reckon should represent the majority?

[FiF]

Zod said:

Nope; even at a third reading, this remains a lot of words making no sense at all.

Top tips.

Very little that particular poster writes makes any sense. Scroll straight past it and save time like a lot of the rest of us.

[XJ Flyer]

s2art said:

XJ Flyer said:

As for fleshing out the position that there is no sovereign English parliament and if there was the Union would be finished the facts speak for themselves.So long as the union exists we will continue with the situation whereby the English are stitched up in order to hold the thing together.

The English currently pay a bit more than the poorer parts of the Union, because they are a bit richer. I dont recall ever feeling 'stitched up' that some of my tax money went to poor areas of Wales or N.I. because I feel its value for money to retain a united Britain, for a variety of reasons including defense and reducing the chance that the S.E. will come under increasing pressure to house what would effectively economic migrants from various corners of the British Isles. WE have been in a transfer union for a long time, no different to the federal USA or Canada, because it works better than the alternative.

The reality is that the south east has a higher net cost of living and lower relative net incomes as a result.While as we know the Scottish get more spent on them per head in social and public spending out of the money we contribute than we do.So why would anyone from Scotland want to move to the south east for example.While there is no law that says that we have to cover the place in yet more concrete to house them even if they did.Although Cameron's policies in housing economic immigrant populations amongst other 'infrastructure' projects like airport expansion and rail links are more than enough in that regard anyway.

[XJ Flyer]

Asterix said:

XJ Flyer said:

As it stands Cameron is just trying to put together a stitch up which gives the Cons an automatic majority in the non existent sovereign state of England.

Just out of curiosity - having a glance at this map of England, who do you reckon should represent the majority?

I think you've missed the point there is no such sovereign governed state as England which is what being part of a federal UK means.

As for the Conservative majority there it is ironic that with all that the only way that it can claim any parliamentary majority is with the help of the Libdems or selectively ignoring its Unionist ideology when it suits it.As I've said both the Cons and more unbelievably UKIP's selectively Unionist ideology has damaged them more than it has damaged Labour to the point where UKIP has at least lost one voter in my case.As for the Cons I think they are a case of yes all the lights are on but no one is at home.

[Johnnytheboy]

XJ Flyer said:

As for the Conservative majority there it is ironic that with all that the only way that it can claim any parliamentary majority is with the help of the Libdems or selectively ignoring its Unionist ideology when it suits it.

That's the whole point of the thread....

[XJ Flyer]

Johnnytheboy said:

XJ Flyer said:

As for the Conservative majority there it is ironic that with all that the only way that it can claim any parliamentary majority is with the help of the Libdems or selectively ignoring its Unionist ideology when it suits it.

That's the whole point of the thread....

No the point of the thread was in asking wether that Conservative majority in the non existent 'English' parliament will translate into a UK LabLibdem loss at the election.Bearing in mind that it will take a UK majority vote to create that Conservative 'English' majority parliament and whatever the LabLibdems might be,turkeys voting for Christmas isn't one of them.

Also bearing in mind that,to those of us who think that a Con win would be no better than a LabLibdem one,the really worrying thing is that UKIP now seem to have joined the Cons in the selectively unionist/federalist cause.In which case we can forget all about a Party which was, supposedly,ideologically opposed to the idea of federalism in whatever form.Which is what we 'thought' we had but obviously didn't.

[steveT350C]

XJ Flyer said:

Johnnytheboy said:

XJ Flyer said:

As for the Conservative majority there it is ironic that with all that the only way that it can claim any parliamentary majority is with the help of the Libdems or selectively ignoring its Unionist ideology when it suits it.

That's the whole point of the thread....

No the point of the thread was in asking wether that Conservative majority in the non existent 'English' parliament will translate into a UK LabLibdem loss at the election.Bearing in mind that it will take a UK majority vote to create that Conservative 'English' majority parliament and whatever the LabLibdems might be,turkeys voting for Christmas isn't one of them.

Also bearing in mind that,to those of us who think that a Con win would be no better than a LabLibdem one,the really worrying thing is that UKIP now seem to have joined the Cons in the selectively unionist/federalist cause.In which case we can forget all about a Party which was, supposedly,ideologically opposed to the idea of federalism in whatever form.Which is what we 'thought' we had but obviously didn't.

You can say 'federalist' as much as you like, but UKIP's raison d'être is Brexit, and that's why I will be voting for them and, I guess, why you voted for them - in the MEP elections?

[Mrr T]

XJ Flyer said:

The simple fact is you can't 'scrap' the idea of 'UK' MP's voting on UK matters and there is no such thing as an English sovereign parliament.There is no way that the Libdems and Labour Party are going to commit political suicide by counting out all of their UK MP's in the UK parliament.As it stands Cameron is just trying to put together a stitch up which gives the Cons an automatic majority in the non existent sovereign state of England.The reason why there is no sovereign English parliament being that as soon as there is the Union is effectively finished anyway.

Your arguments make no sense. USA, Germany, Canada and Switzerland are all federal states. The USA is the United States of America. Are you suggesting the USA is not a union because its an agreement of many federal states.

[Mrr T]

XJ Flyer said:

Cameron is 'actually' just trying to create a situation whereby it will be easier to get through the cutbacks he'll have to make in England to keep the Scottish unionists onside.

As for fleshing out the position that there is no sovereign English parliament and if there was the Union would be finished the facts speak for themselves.So long as the union exists we will continue with the situation whereby the English are stitched up in order to hold the thing together.

This makes even less sense. Scotland just voted to stay in the union, but since it has its own parliament does that mean a union does not exists.?

A union does not mean the UK cannot be arranged on a federal basis with many matters being decided within national parliaments and a federal government deciding join matters. Just like in the USA.

[XJ Flyer]

steveT350C said:

XJ Flyer said:

Johnnytheboy said:

XJ Flyer said:

As for the Conservative majority there it is ironic that with all that the only way that it can claim any parliamentary majority is with the help of the Libdems or selectively ignoring its Unionist ideology when it suits it.

That's the whole point of the thread....

No the point of the thread was in asking wether that Conservative majority in the non existent 'English' parliament will translate into a UK LabLibdem loss at the election.Bearing in mind that it will take a UK majority vote to create that Conservative 'English' majority parliament and whatever the LabLibdems might be,turkeys voting for Christmas isn't one of them.

Also bearing in mind that,to those of us who think that a Con win would be no better than a LabLibdem one,the really worrying thing is that UKIP now seem to have joined the Cons in the selectively unionist/federalist cause.In which case we can forget all about a Party which was, supposedly,ideologically opposed to the idea of federalism in whatever form.Which is what we 'thought' we had but obviously didn't.

You can say 'federalist' as much as you like, but UKIP's raison d'être is Brexit, and that's why I will be voting for them and, I guess, why you voted for them - in the MEP elections?

No I voted for them in the Euro elections for the same reason that I would have voted for them in the general election.That being ideologically opposed to the idea of federalism.Which as far as I'm aware is/was UKIP's position concerning secession from the EU federation.As for a so called 'Brexit' form the EU how does Farage intend to take the Scottish with him in that regard being that both the SNP and Labour vote there is obviously pro EU.With the SNP's selectively federalist position being just as much of a contradiction in that regard as Farage's obviously selectively Unionist one.Which probably explains why the Scottish independence vote wasn't nearer to a 100 % turnout resulting in an SNP win and the end of the UK union.

[Asterix]

XJ Flyer said:

Asterix said:

XJ Flyer said:

As it stands Cameron is just trying to put together a stitch up which gives the Cons an automatic majority in the non existent sovereign state of England.

Just out of curiosity - having a glance at this map of England, who do you reckon should represent the majority?

I think you've missed the point there is no such sovereign governed state as England which is what being part of a federal UK means.

As for the Conservative majority there it is ironic that with all that the only way that it can claim any parliamentary majority is with the help of the Libdems or selectively ignoring its Unionist ideology when it suits it.As I've said both the Cons and more unbelievably UKIP's selectively Unionist ideology has damaged them more than it has damaged Labour to the point where UKIP has at least lost one voter in my case.As for the Cons I think they are a case of yes all the lights are on but no one is at home.

I don't understand why you don't 'get it' even when I post a big picture, like your other books, explaining exactly why the Labour lot are panicking.

[XJ Flyer]

Asterix said:

XJ Flyer said:

Asterix said:

XJ Flyer said:

As it stands Cameron is just trying to put together a stitch up which gives the Cons an automatic majority in the non existent sovereign state of England.

Just out of curiosity - having a glance at this map of England, who do you reckon should represent the majority?

I think you've missed the point there is no such sovereign governed state as England which is what being part of a federal UK means.

As for the Conservative majority there it is ironic that with all that the only way that it can claim any parliamentary majority is with the help of the Libdems or selectively ignoring its Unionist ideology when it suits it.As I've said both the Cons and more unbelievably UKIP's selectively Unionist ideology has damaged them more than it has damaged Labour to the point where UKIP has at least lost one voter in my case.As for the Cons I think they are a case of yes all the lights are on but no one is at home.

I don't understand why you don't 'get it' even when I post a big picture, like your other books, explaining exactly why the Labour lot are panicking.

I do 'get it'.The Cons have a large presence in England.But there is no English parliament and it will need the support of the LabLibdem UK presence to create such a parliament.In which case the Cons don't have any majority in that regard and the LabLibdems aren't generally in the habit of committing political suicide.Although the Libdems have come close once or twice.

The simple choice now being that either UKIP and rebel Conservatives decide to dump their federalist ideology and go for English independence.Or we most likely get a LabLibdem coalition at the next election.In either case a Conservative Unionist majority,using English nationalism to get a mandate to pay off the Scottish Unionists to keep the UK dream alive,would probably be the worst possible outcome for the English in that regard.

[Mojocvh]

XJ Flyer said:

Zod said:

XJ Flyer said:

It would be fair to say that the UK in UKIP could only be a geographic identifier not an ideological one assuming the party stands for 'independence' and 'anti federalism'.Assuming that isn't the case then its just an offshoot of the Conservative Unionist Party in which case it is actually an ideologically federalist/unionist party masquerading under the anti federalist anti unionist banner.By your logic that makes UKIP not ideologically opposed to the EU at all when like the Cons it would obviously just be happy with federalism with the fig leaf and empty promises of so called 'devolution' to pretend that all the economic and democratic the flaws of the federalist/unionist system don't exist.

The fact is UKIP's support of the federalist cause in this case,thereby destroying its anti federalist credentials,has done more damage to UKIP than Cameron's empty threat of devolution presents to the Labour Party.With the very real probability now of us ending up with a pro EU federalist LabLibdemCon Brown/Miliband,Clegg led coalition government and Cameron alliance taking us ever further into the federalist mire of the UK and EU.

In this case either UKIP and the supposed Conservative backbenchers,who are claiming to be so worried about the English nationalist interest,are going to put up by taking an English nationalist line.Or they can shut up in the form of being just another bunch of Unionists selling out the English national interest to the UK and EU federalist stitch ups.Assuming that UKIP wants to continue with the latter,then the obvious contradiction contained in having having an ideological title,identifying it as both a unionist 'and' a supposed 'independence' Party,is as much a stupid contradiction as that ideological position itself.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:35

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 22 September 13:36

Nope; even at a third reading, this remains a lot of words making no sense at all.

Trust me it makes a lot more sense than a Unionist Independence Party.Remembering they need people to vote for them I don't need anyone to vote for me and they've certainly lost my vote unless they decide to be an independence party not a unionist one.

Ah dadums, have you been directed to "share" your wrath on all things Scottish/Indy/UKIP/EU membership now??

[steveT350C]

XJ Flyer said:

steveT350C said:

XJ Flyer said:

Johnnytheboy said:

XJ Flyer said:

As for the Conservative majority there it is ironic that with all that the only way that it can claim any parliamentary majority is with the help of the Libdems or selectively ignoring its Unionist ideology when it suits it.

That's the whole point of the thread....

No the point of the thread was in asking wether that Conservative majority in the non existent 'English' parliament will translate into a UK LabLibdem loss at the election.Bearing in mind that it will take a UK majority vote to create that Conservative 'English' majority parliament and whatever the LabLibdems might be,turkeys voting for Christmas isn't one of them.

Also bearing in mind that,to those of us who think that a Con win would be no better than a LabLibdem one,the really worrying thing is that UKIP now seem to have joined the Cons in the selectively unionist/federalist cause.In which case we can forget all about a Party which was, supposedly,ideologically opposed to the idea of federalism in whatever form.Which is what we 'thought' we had but obviously didn't.

You can say 'federalist' as much as you like, but UKIP's raison d'être is Brexit, and that's why I will be voting for them and, I guess, why you voted for them - in the MEP elections?

No I voted for them in the Euro elections for the same reason that I would have voted for them in the general election.That being ideologically opposed to the idea of federalism.Which as far as I'm aware is/was UKIP's position concerning secession from the EU federation.As for a so called 'Brexit' form the EU how does Farage intend to take the Scottish with him in that regard being that both the SNP and Labour vote there is obviously pro EU.With the SNP's selectively federalist position being just as much of a contradiction in that regard as Farage's obviously selectively Unionist one.Which probably explains why the Scottish independence vote wasn't nearer to a 100 % turnout resulting in an SNP win and the end of the UK union.

My mistake.

You consider the Scotland situation more important than the EU situation.

[mph1977]

turbobloke said:

Moonhawk said:

Stevanos said:

England contributes 19% more per capita more then the rest of the UK to Scotland, I think that has got people thinking.

I personally have no issue with that per-se. If certain areas of the UK are generating wealth at this particular point in time - and other areas have a greater need to spend that wealth for regeneration etc - then so be it.

Fair enough, but funneling money from the SE to points northwards took place over the Labour years, with considerable regeneration arising. If being generous with other people's money and on their behalf for so long (i.e. still happening and on into the future without any apparent time limit and likely to increase if anything) hasn't worked then carrying on with the same policy starts to look less like essential regeneration and more like overly generous subsidy which needs a re-think.

but the areas in England that got the extra money still had thesame treatment of individuals with regard to 'benefits' - no free prescriptions , no free Uni places ...

[turbobloke]

mph1977 said:

turbobloke said:

Moonhawk said:

Stevanos said:

England contributes 19% more per capita more then the rest of the UK to Scotland, I think that has got people thinking.

I personally have no issue with that per-se. If certain areas of the UK are generating wealth at this particular point in time - and other areas have a greater need to spend that wealth for regeneration etc - then so be it.

Fair enough, but funneling money from the SE to points northwards took place over the Labour years, with considerable regeneration arising. If being generous with other people's money and on their behalf for so long (i.e. still happening and on into the future without any apparent time limit and likely to increase if anything) hasn't worked then carrying on with the same policy starts to look less like essential regeneration and more like overly generous subsidy which needs a re-think.

but the areas in England that got the extra money still had the same treatment of individuals with regard to 'benefits' - no free prescriptions , no free Uni places ...

OK but funding regeneration was the point in question and it's not just about handouts to individuals, deserving or not - far from it.

[XJ Flyer]

steveT350C said:

XJ Flyer said:

steveT350C said:

XJ Flyer said:

Johnnytheboy said:

XJ Flyer said:

As for the Conservative majority there it is ironic that with all that the only way that it can claim any parliamentary majority is with the help of the Libdems or selectively ignoring its Unionist ideology when it suits it.

That's the whole point of the thread....

No the point of the thread was in asking wether that Conservative majority in the non existent 'English' parliament will translate into a UK LabLibdem loss at the election.Bearing in mind that it will take a UK majority vote to create that Conservative 'English' majority parliament and whatever the LabLibdems might be,turkeys voting for Christmas isn't one of them.

Also bearing in mind that,to those of us who think that a Con win would be no better than a LabLibdem one,the really worrying thing is that UKIP now seem to have joined the Cons in the selectively unionist/federalist cause.In which case we can forget all about a Party which was, supposedly,ideologically opposed to the idea of federalism in whatever form.Which is what we 'thought' we had but obviously didn't.

You can say 'federalist' as much as you like, but UKIP's raison d'être is Brexit, and that's why I will be voting for them and, I guess, why you voted for them - in the MEP elections?

No I voted for them in the Euro elections for the same reason that I would have voted for them in the general election.That being ideologically opposed to the idea of federalism.Which as far as I'm aware is/was UKIP's position concerning secession from the EU federation.As for a so called 'Brexit' form the EU how does Farage intend to take the Scottish with him in that regard being that both the SNP and Labour vote there is obviously pro EU.With the SNP's selectively federalist position being just as much of a contradiction in that regard as Farage's obviously selectively Unionist one.Which probably explains why the Scottish independence vote wasn't nearer to a 100 % turnout resulting in an SNP win and the end of the UK union.

My mistake.

You consider the Scotland situation more important than the EU situation.

No I view the issues as being all the same.Those being all of the same downsides of being part of a federation.Wether it be the UK or the EU and especially in the case of us being a net contributor to the budgets of both at the expense of ourselves.

The question then being the selective opposite positions which UKIP has on each respectively.IE support of federalism in one case and a stated supposed ideological opposition to it in the other.

[steveT350C]

XJ Flyer said:

steveT350C said:

XJ Flyer said:

steveT350C said:

XJ Flyer said:

Johnnytheboy said:

XJ Flyer said:

As for the Conservative majority there it is ironic that with all that the only way that it can claim any parliamentary majority is with the help of the Libdems or selectively ignoring its Unionist ideology when it suits it.

That's the whole point of the thread....

No the point of the thread was in asking wether that Conservative majority in the non existent 'English' parliament will translate into a UK LabLibdem loss at the election.Bearing in mind that it will take a UK majority vote to create that Conservative 'English' majority parliament and whatever the LabLibdems might be,turkeys voting for Christmas isn't one of them.

Also bearing in mind that,to those of us who think that a Con win would be no better than a LabLibdem one,the really worrying thing is that UKIP now seem to have joined the Cons in the selectively unionist/federalist cause.In which case we can forget all about a Party which was, supposedly,ideologically opposed to the idea of federalism in whatever form.Which is what we 'thought' we had but obviously didn't.

You can say 'federalist' as much as you like, but UKIP's raison d'être is Brexit, and that's why I will be voting for them and, I guess, why you voted for them - in the MEP elections?

No I voted for them in the Euro elections for the same reason that I would have voted for them in the general election.That being ideologically opposed to the idea of federalism.Which as far as I'm aware is/was UKIP's position concerning secession from the EU federation.As for a so called 'Brexit' form the EU how does Farage intend to take the Scottish with him in that regard being that both the SNP and Labour vote there is obviously pro EU.With the SNP's selectively federalist position being just as much of a contradiction in that regard as Farage's obviously selectively Unionist one.Which probably explains why the Scottish independence vote wasn't nearer to a 100 % turnout resulting in an SNP win and the end of the UK union.

My mistake.

You consider the Scotland situation more important than the EU situation.

No I view the issues as being all the same.Those being all of the same downsides of being part of a federation.Wether it be the UK or the EU and especially in the case of us being a net contributor to the budgets of both at the expense of ourselves.

The question then being the selective opposite positions which UKIP has on each respectively.IE support of federalism in one case and a stated supposed ideological opposition to it in the other.

It's your point of view which you are of course entitled to.

I personally don't want to be part of the EU, which has been forced upon me, without my consent, during my life.

Quite happy for the Jocks to stay part of the UK, as they always have been, during my life.

I don't really bother with ideologies and isms, they tend to be used by people who wish to cloud issues and appear 'intelligent'.

Edited by steveT350C on Monday 22 September 19:03