Left wingers are getting a bit scared

[edh]

turbobloke said:

edh said:

the loony libertarian right

The sane libertarian right also houses some people, more than you might give credit for

edh said:

btw the idea that Labour is in a tiny minority in England is wrong. Take out Scottish mp's and the GE result is usually the same.

Has anyone mentioned a 'tiny minority' apart from your good self?

Data in the House of Commons Library posted in this or a similar thread shows that not having Scotland in the electoral fray is an effective way of preventing a Labour majority - which is different to guaranteeing a Conservative victory - based on the last 50 to 60 years.

Sounds good.

I've seen the report - I think there would have only been 2 different results in the last 50 years or so.

...as for "tiny minority", well on the same page as my initial post you wrote

"...in terms of the majority of the people seeing their vote leading to the Party they voted for getting in at election time. That's true democracy.... ....There will be the odd LibDem yellow spot here and there, a red blob or two particularly up north."

and Guybrush wrote
"- around 85% of the population, which largely voted blue, often getting lumbered with an economy-destroying party of envy, largely because of the votes of a minority at the very north of the country."

You both have an odd idea that the majority of English people vote Tory. They don't. Also I don't think there have been many (any?) elections where the majority of people voted for the winning party in a UK GE - "that's true democracy" .

[turbobloke]

edh said:

...as for "tiny minority", well on the same page as my initial post you wrote

"...in terms of the majority of the people seeing their vote leading to the Party they voted for getting in at election time. That's true democracy.... ....There will be the odd LibDem yellow spot here and there, a red blob or two particularly up north."

and Guybrush wrote
"- around 85% of the population, which largely voted blue, often getting lumbered with an economy-destroying party of envy, largely because of the votes of a minority at the very north of the country."

You both have an odd idea that the majority of English people vote Tory. They don't. Also I don't think there have been many (any?) elections where the majority of people voted for the winning party in a UK GE - "that's true democracy" smile .

Disagree for the most part - but at least we agree that it was only you that mentioned the phrase 'tiny minority'

The HoCL data has the implication I described.

The notion that England will return a majority Labour government is a very unlikely one. The chances of Labour inflicting the same damage as it did in the 70s and again 1997-2010 will be reassuringly limited.

[turbobloke]

JagLover said:

turbobloke said:

Has anyone mentioned a 'tiny minority' apart from your good self?

Data in the House of Commons Library posted in this or a similar thread shows that not having Scotland in the electoral fray is an effective way of preventing a Labour majority, which is different to guaranteeing a Conservative victory, based on the last 50 to 60 years.

Yep, having "English votes for English laws" does not mean permanent Tory government, particularly given the rise in UKIP. Some parliaments they might have a majority, in others need a coalition with the LIb Dems, and in others Labour could form a coalition with the Lib-dems.

What is does mean that Labour can't achieve 30-33% of the English vote and then spend 5 years inflicting their out of date, envy based, policies on us.

Exactly.

[edh]

turbobloke said:

The HoCL data has the implication I described.

The notion that England will return a majority Labour government is a very unlikely one. The chances of Labour inflicting the same damage as it did in the 70s and again 1997-2010 will be reassuringly limited.

Nope - Blair would definitely still have won

http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-nee...

"- on ONE occasion (1964) Scottish MPs have turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one. The Tory majority without Scottish votes would have been just one MP (280 vs 279), and as such useless in practice. The Labour government, with an almost equally feeble majority of 4, lasted just 18 months and a Tory one would probably have collapsed even faster.

- on ONE occasion (the second of the two 1974 elections) Scottish MPs gave Labour a wafer-thin majority (319 vs 316) they wouldn’t have had from the rest of the UK alone, although they’d still have been the largest party and able to command a majority in a pact with the Liberals, as they eventually did in reality.

- and on ONE occasion (2010) the presence of Scottish MPs has deprived the Conservatives of an outright majority, although the Conservatives ended up in control of the government anyway in coalition with the Lib Dems when Labour refused to co-operate with other parties in a “rainbow alliance”.

- which means that for 65 of the last 67 years, Scottish MPs as an entity have had no practical influence over the composition of the UK government. From a high of 72 MPs in 1983, Scotland’s representation will by 2015 have decreased to 52, substantially reducing any future possibility of affecting a change."

oh and it's quite possible for labour to win a majority with just a little bit more than 33% in a FPP election

Edited by edh on Tuesday 23 September 18:21

[s2art]

edh said:

Nope - Blair would definitely still have won

http://wingsoverscotland.com/why-labour-doesnt-nee...

"- on ONE occasion (1964) Scottish MPs have turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one. The Tory majority without Scottish votes would have been just one MP (280 vs 279), and as such useless in practice. The Labour government, with an almost equally feeble majority of 4, lasted just 18 months and a Tory one would probably have collapsed even faster.

- on ONE occasion (the second of the two 1974 elections) Scottish MPs gave Labour a wafer-thin majority (319 vs 316) they wouldn’t have had from the rest of the UK alone, although they’d still have been the largest party and able to command a majority in a pact with the Liberals, as they eventually did in reality.

- and on ONE occasion (2010) the presence of Scottish MPs has deprived the Conservatives of an outright majority, although the Conservatives ended up in control of the government anyway in coalition with the Lib Dems when Labour refused to co-operate with other parties in a “rainbow alliance”.

- which means that for 65 of the last 67 years, Scottish MPs as an entity have had no practical influence over the composition of the UK government. From a high of 72 MPs in 1983, Scotland’s representation will by 2015 have decreased to 52, substantially reducing any future possibility of affecting a change."

oh and it's quite possible for labour to win a majority with just a little bit more than 33% in a FPP election

Yes, but how many times would it have required a coalition to form a large enough majority? Presumably any small Labour majority would make it difficult to get a lot of stuff through Parliament.Not that I trust your source, mind you, and if we are talking about just England then you have to subtract the Welsh Labour MPs as well.

Edited by s2art on Tuesday 23 September 18:28

Edited by s2art on Tuesday 23 September 18:29

Edited by s2art on Tuesday 23 September 18:30

[XJ Flyer]

turbobloke said:

edh said:

...as for "tiny minority", well on the same page as my initial post you wrote

"...in terms of the majority of the people seeing their vote leading to the Party they voted for getting in at election time. That's true democracy.... ....There will be the odd LibDem yellow spot here and there, a red blob or two particularly up north."

and Guybrush wrote
"- around 85% of the population, which largely voted blue, often getting lumbered with an economy-destroying party of envy, largely because of the votes of a minority at the very north of the country."

You both have an odd idea that the majority of English people vote Tory. They don't. Also I don't think there have been many (any?) elections where the majority of people voted for the winning party in a UK GE - "that's true democracy" smile .

Disagree for the most part - but at least we agree that it was only you that mentioned the phrase 'tiny minority'

The HoCL data has the implication I described.

The notion that England will return a majority Labour government is a very unlikely one. The chances of Labour inflicting the same damage as it did in the 70s and again 1997-2010 will be reassuringly limited.

Firstly that's assuming the present LabLibdem vote won't vote tactically to create the best chance of Labour at least creating a hung parliament situation v the Cons and assuming that the Lablibdems will be turkeys voting for Christmas in giving up on the idea of no seperate English parliament.

It also might be underestimating the intelligence of the ex Labour now UKIP vote and the Libdem vote,in not switching their votes over to Labour in marginal Con/LabLibdem/UKIP areas and Libdems in marginal Con/Libdem areas.To stop the situation which I've described above,of a cut happy administration getting hold of any potential English parliament.In an environment which would only allow English budget cuts to pay for the guarantees provided for Scottish spending not vice versa,England being the only real net contributor to the UK budget requirement.

IE where's the sense in voting for an 'English' federalist Con administration that has no powers to increase the English share of the UK budget only cut it to add to the share taken out of it by the rest of the UK like Scotland.In addition to selling us out just the same to the EU.

As at the last election I don't think the Cons supporters have really thought this through.

[edh]

s2art said:

Yes, but how many times would it have required a coalition to form a large enough majority? Presumably any small Labour majority would make it difficult to get a lot of stuff through Parliament.Not that I trust your source, mind you.

Edited by s2art on Tuesday 23 September 18:28

Edited by s2art on Tuesday 23 September 18:29

read the article, no change, no coalition, do the maths yourself if you like... The HoC paper said much the same - don't have a link for that though

[s2art]

edh said:

s2art said:

Yes, but how many times would it have required a coalition to form a large enough majority? Presumably any small Labour majority would make it difficult to get a lot of stuff through Parliament.Not that I trust your source, mind you.

Edited by s2art on Tuesday 23 September 18:28

Edited by s2art on Tuesday 23 September 18:29

read the article, no change, no coalition, do the maths yourself if you like... The HoC paper said much the same - don't have a link for that though

But did the HoC paper also subtract the Welsh Labour MPs? (and for that matter, Scots and Welsh LibDem MPs, as it would have some impact)

[edh]

Here it is
http://commonslibraryblog.com/2014/01/30/general-e...

This is interesting as well
http://commonslibraryblog.com/2014/08/15/who-gets-...

[s2art]

edh said:

Here it is
http://commonslibraryblog.com/2014/01/30/general-e...

This is interesting as well
http://commonslibraryblog.com/2014/08/15/who-gets-...

Yes, interesting but the figures for just an English parliament cant be deduced from that. Remember that if you subtract all Welsh and Scottish non tory MPs, the number of seats required for a Tory majority, IN ENGLAND, is also reduced.

[edh]

s2art said:

But did the HoC paper also subtract the Welsh Labour MPs? (and for that matter, Scots and Welsh LibDem MPs, as it would have some impact)

No - although Labour have a majority of 12 in Wales at the moment - so wouldn't have made much of dent in Blair's majorities.
Lib Dems side with the Tories, so getting rid of them is good

..and of course we'd have Welsh mp's voting on a different subset of matters nless they get the same devolution settlement as Scotland.

Then once more of the government is devolved to UK cities & regions (as Daniel Hannan suggests..), there might be precious few "English" matters to be discussed at a UK parliament.

I'd vote for that

[s2art]

edh said:

s2art said:

But did the HoC paper also subtract the Welsh Labour MPs? (and for that matter, Scots and Welsh LibDem MPs, as it would have some impact)

No - although Labour have a majority of 12 in Wales at the moment - so wouldn't have made much of dent in Blair's majorities.
Lib Dems side with the Tories, so getting rid of them is good

..and of course we'd have Welsh mp's voting on a different subset of matters nless they get the same devolution settlement as Scotland.

Then once more of the government is devolved to UK cities & regions (as Daniel Hannan suggests..), there might be precious few "English" matters to be discussed at a UK parliament.

I'd vote for that

Looks like the Tories, and UKIP, are pushing for 'English laws by English votes', and it seems popular. Plenty of big issues for English matters, NHS, Education, infrastructure, tax and spending etc etc. I guess stuff like energy production would be in the UK matters camp.

[XJ Flyer]

edh said:

Here it is
http://commonslibraryblog.com/2014/01/30/general-e...

The conclusion there seems to be that on the basis of 'current' polls Labour would still have a majority without Scottish MP's.That's without factoring in as I've said the reality dawning that any 'English' only Con administration would only have the powers to cut the English budget to pay for the bribes offered to the Scottish not to increase it.Which would explain Gordon Brown's knockout punch v the SNP.But also showing that UKIP and the rebel Cons lost the plot by not standing for English independence thereby removing us from the UK budget requirement.

It will probably be that catastrophic mistake which will ( hopefully ) deny Cameron getting his ersatz independent 'English' parliament while sadly wrecking the hopes of those of us who thought that Farage was the real anti federalist thing.

[s2art]

XJ Flyer said:

It will probably be that catastrophic mistake which will ( hopefully ) deny Cameron getting his ersatz independent 'English' parliament while sadly wrecking the hopes of those of us who thought that Farage was the real anti federalist thing.

I am pretty sure that UKIP's policy has been for more power to be devolved to the home countries for some time now. So to assume that Farage was anti-federalist is a bit strange. He is certainly against the UK in a federal Europe though.

[XJ Flyer]

s2art said:

edh said:

s2art said:

But did the HoC paper also subtract the Welsh Labour MPs? (and for that matter, Scots and Welsh LibDem MPs, as it would have some impact)

No - although Labour have a majority of 12 in Wales at the moment - so wouldn't have made much of dent in Blair's majorities.
Lib Dems side with the Tories, so getting rid of them is good

..and of course we'd have Welsh mp's voting on a different subset of matters nless they get the same devolution settlement as Scotland.

Then once more of the government is devolved to UK cities & regions (as Daniel Hannan suggests..), there might be precious few "English" matters to be discussed at a UK parliament.

I'd vote for that

Looks like the Tories, and UKIP, are pushing for 'English laws by English votes', and it seems popular. Plenty of big issues for English matters, NHS, Education, infrastructure, tax and spending etc etc. I guess stuff like energy production would be in the UK matters camp.

But which in reality can only mean English cuts in the English share of the UK budget to pay for Scottish increases.Not vice versa.It is that realisation that will hopefully stop Cameron and his new found ally,or is that possibly just pretend enemy,Farage in their tracks.

[s2art]

XJ Flyer said:

s2art said:

edh said:

s2art said:

But did the HoC paper also subtract the Welsh Labour MPs? (and for that matter, Scots and Welsh LibDem MPs, as it would have some impact)

No - although Labour have a majority of 12 in Wales at the moment - so wouldn't have made much of dent in Blair's majorities.
Lib Dems side with the Tories, so getting rid of them is good

..and of course we'd have Welsh mp's voting on a different subset of matters nless they get the same devolution settlement as Scotland.

Then once more of the government is devolved to UK cities & regions (as Daniel Hannan suggests..), there might be precious few "English" matters to be discussed at a UK parliament.

I'd vote for that

Looks like the Tories, and UKIP, are pushing for 'English laws by English votes', and it seems popular. Plenty of big issues for English matters, NHS, Education, infrastructure, tax and spending etc etc. I guess stuff like energy production would be in the UK matters camp.

But which in reality can only mean English cuts in the English share of the UK budget to pay for Scottish increases.Not vice versa.It is that realisation that will hopefully stop Cameron and his new found ally,or is that possibly just pretend enemy,Farage in their tracks.

I think you are wrong in this.There is no way an 'English' parliament is going to vote that way.

[edh]

s2art said:

Looks like the Tories, and UKIP, are pushing for 'English laws by English votes', and it seems popular. Plenty of big issues for English matters, NHS, Education, infrastructure, tax and spending etc etc. I guess stuff like energy production would be in the UK matters camp.

I'd expect most of that to be devolved to a more local level - as it is in Scotland. Tax and spending, well some of that will be UK wide, some devolved, and a limited amount English.

[MarshPhantom]

Independence for London?

[s2art]

edh said:

s2art said:

Looks like the Tories, and UKIP, are pushing for 'English laws by English votes', and it seems popular. Plenty of big issues for English matters, NHS, Education, infrastructure, tax and spending etc etc. I guess stuff like energy production would be in the UK matters camp.

I'd expect most of that to be devolved to a more local level - as it is in Scotland. Tax and spending, well some of that will be UK wide, some devolved, and a limited amount English.

Disagree. The NHS in England will not be devolved further than the current plans, why should it be? Education too, its been devolved as much as it sensibly can be. As England represents approx 85% of the UK it wont be 'a limited amount' WRT to tax and spending, how could it be?

[mph1977]

Mrr T said:

turbobloke said:

Mrr T said:

XJ Flyer said:

You are missing the point that firstly in the USA decisions made at state level can be overruled at federal level.Just like in the case of the EU and just like in the case of the UK.

I presume you have never heard of the US constitution. The Tenth Amendment set out in detail what are Federal matters. The Federal government cannot over rule a state except on a federal matter.

Out of interest, who defined what is and what isn't a federal matter?

From the above (constitution) it appears to be on the government side!

The US constitution gives a range of powers to the federal government. Mainly, if I remember correct, Section 7 and 8.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution makes it clear that if the Constitution does not specifically make a matter a federal matter then its a state matter.

Mind you that does not stop constant battles between the states and the federal government as to the correct meaning of what is a state or federal matter.

nor does it stop the imposition of coercive clauses into unrelated federal bills