Left wingers are getting a bit scared

[XJ Flyer]

crankedup said:

j_s14a said:

crankedup said:

I agree, its not the fairness that concerns me its the possibility of one political party in England having no serious opposition in Parliament. Its a balance of power required for democracy to work well for the Country.

But that wouldn't happen.

Labour would change its policies to appeal to a greater percentage of the voters, or other parties would move to fill that void.

Yes indeed, and therein is the problem imo. The migration of parties into the middle ground leaves no choice for those minded to left or right of centre. Its bad enough already with so little to choose between the main parties. It will leave voters disconnected, unless new parties emerge to fill any void.

It won't make any difference how many parties we have.The problem is that just like under the EU we would be lumbered with an unassailable federalist majority in power with the Cons obviously holding the most power.The Cons being lumbered with the worst possible combination of a federalist,low wage employment,and high cost private self sufficient health and social provision ideology.When what's really needed is an anti federalist Labour Party that ditches all the socialist baggage.

IE it is all about sovereignty,local democracy and incomes.Not trying to deal with the symptoms of the low income environment caused by the Cons,using the flawed ideology and politics of envy,of socialism.Which is why England first needs independence before any of that can happen.

[crankedup]

XJ Flyer said:

crankedup said:

j_s14a said:

crankedup said:

I agree, its not the fairness that concerns me its the possibility of one political party in England having no serious opposition in Parliament. Its a balance of power required for democracy to work well for the Country.

But that wouldn't happen.

Labour would change its policies to appeal to a greater percentage of the voters, or other parties would move to fill that void.

Yes indeed, and therein is the problem imo. The migration of parties into the middle ground leaves no choice for those minded to left or right of centre. Its bad enough already with so little to choose between the main parties. It will leave voters disconnected, unless new parties emerge to fill any void.

It won't make any difference how many parties we have.The problem is that just like under the EU we would be lumbered with an unassailable federalist majority in power with the Cons obviously holding the most power.The Cons being lumbered with the worst possible combination of a federalist,low wage employment,and high cost private self sufficient health and social provision ideology.When what's really needed is an anti federalist Labour Party that ditches all the socialist baggage.

IE it is all about sovereignty,local democracy and incomes.Not trying to deal with the symptoms of the low income environment caused by the Cons,using the flawed ideology and politics of envy,of socialism.Which is why England first needs independence before any of that can happen.

I'm not disagreeing regarding independence for England. But given the choice of an independent England stuck with a one party political agenda I would ditch the independence choice. So far as local democracy and decision making goes, that feels me with dread, its bad enough as it stands now. Just look at these Police crime commissioners and their cronies for a taste of localism.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

I'm not disagreeing regarding independence for England. But given the choice of an independent England stuck with a one party political agenda I would ditch the independence choice. So far as local democracy and decision making goes, that feels me with dread, its bad enough as it stands now. Just look at these Police crime commissioners and their cronies for a taste of localism.

It looks suspiciously as though you don't like it because you know what colour tie will be involved for the most part and it's not yellow or red.

PCC is an easy cherry pick given recent news items. For national fusterclucks via centralised decision making see just about everything under 'Labour UK'. For lessons on how to hold back national recovery try the LibDem contribution to the coalition which has tried to out-Labour the Labour party and seen electoral support fall off a cliff. Fortunately there may well be so few yellow ties on the lizards next time as to prevent a repeat performance.

[XJ Flyer]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

I'm not disagreeing regarding independence for England. But given the choice of an independent England stuck with a one party political agenda I would ditch the independence choice. So far as local democracy and decision making goes, that feels me with dread, its bad enough as it stands now. Just look at these Police crime commissioners and their cronies for a taste of localism.

It looks suspiciously as though you don't like it because you know what colour tie will be involved for the most part and it's not yellow or red.

PCC is an easy cherry pick given recent news items. For national fusterclucks via centralised decision making see just about everything under 'Labour UK'. For lessons on how to hold back national recovery try the LibDem contribution to the coalition which has tried to out-Labour the Labour party and seen electoral support fall off a cliff. Fortunately there may well be so few yellow ties on the lizards next time as to prevent a repeat performance.

To be fair the Cons,by Unionist ideological definition, are no less federalist than the Soviet Socialist mindset that Labour is lumbered with and,like that Con ideological baggage,seems unable to get its head around ditching.

In this case both seeming to be happy to mix and match federalist and anti federalist ideology to suit their own political agendas.Wether that be Socialist run devoluted Federalism in the case of Scotland and Wales or Thatcherite run devoluted federalism in the case of England.In either case the Scottish having made sure that they'll get the best economic deal out of the UK federation whatever government we actually get at the next election.

However with an obviously now Con friendly UKIP that seems more interested in helping Cameron to set up a Thatcherite English fiefdom.Than in going for sovereign Independence for England and ditching the Thatcherite cheap labour ideology,I'd say that the Cons are way over estimating their chances at the next election.With UKIP probably having handed the election to a LabLibdem coalition being the lesser of all the federalist evils.

Bearing in mind that the next election was always going to be an ideological battle between an anti federalist UKIP rebel Conservative coalition v a federalist Lablibdem one.With Farage having now obviously nailed his colours to Cameron's Thatcherite federalist agenda.

While it is also obvious that there's no way that potential Lablibdem coalition is going to commit political suicide by voting through a seperate ideologically Thatcherite English parliament and putting it in place before the general election.

[turbobloke]

If CMD was replaced after the election, win or lose, no sleep lost here. At present it looks as though he may well get lucky after the Scotland vote and its implications, we must wait and see if he screws the chance up as badly as he has with the nation's energy security.

[Steffan]

turbobloke said:

If CMD was replaced after the election, win or lose, no sleep lost here. At present it looks as though he may well get lucky after the Scotland vote and its implications, we must wait and see if he screws the chance up as badly as he has with the nation's energy security.

A very fair point. Cameron has dropped a lot of serious political bks. His great advantage is the luck of facing the least competent Labour leader of all time. And of having the open goal of the total disaster that the Labour party demonstrated itself to be with the massive repeated economic mistakes in the Blair/ Brown terms. Without that combination of luck and a very easy target I doubt if Cameron could succeed at the next election.

As it is he might just shade a victory. But given these two matters of pure luck he still looks distinctly vulnerable. He is most certainly not politically astutute or much of a leader. I think he may win on balance. With Boris joining the fold how long Cameron can retain power will be an interesting turn of events to watch.

[XJ Flyer]

turbobloke said:

If CMD was replaced after the election, win or lose, no sleep lost here. At present it looks as though he may well get lucky after the Scotland vote and its implications, we must wait and see if he screws the chance up as badly as he has with the nation's energy security.

The nation's 'energy security' was wrecked in the ideological battle between Thatcherism and Socialism.When,like all of our other wealth creating industrial sectors,she decided to take the literal and metaphorical nuclear option against the coal industry thereby turning us into a banana republic without any bananas.The cross party belief in the global warming cause now just adding to that.

As for screwing up the best chance to keep the Lablibdem cause out its Farage not Cameron who's wrecked that.By firstly not making it clear that the UK in UKIP wasn't an ideologically Unionist,and therefore contradictory, definition and going for an English independence position in the case of both the EU and the UK.To the point where I'd now prefer to vote for the Libdems in a Con/Libdem marginal as a tactical vote to stop a Thatcherite Con regime selling us out to both the UK and EU on an agenda of English cuts to pay for Socialist Scottish Unionism in addition to the EU.Whereas I 'would have' voted for UKIP on principle.

[DJRC]

Wtf have the last two pages been on about?

[Zod]

DJRC said:

Wtf have the last two pages been on about?

As someone pointed out to me, it's better just to filter out XJ Flyer's delirious outpourings.

[Ridgemont]

Zod said:

DJRC said:

Wtf have the last two pages been on about?

As someone pointed out to me, it's better just to filter out XJ Flyer's delirious outpourings.

Federalist>confederalist>sovereigntist>unionist.
What an absolute load of brain fart. Someone has been reading too much Peter Hennessey and not a lot of actual history. The UK makes a habit of botching half way houses in a never-ending natural evolution. XJ reads like a second year undergraduate in PPE. Cf Barnett formula: something jim Callaghan whacked together to stand for a year... turns out the UK works around it.
The spiel around constitutional models fails the single normative test: politics.

[DJRC]

2nd yr PPE student? Explains it. PPE students always were third rate politics students. Explains a lot about Parliament.

[XJ Flyer]

Ridgemont said:

Zod said:

DJRC said:

Wtf have the last two pages been on about?

As someone pointed out to me, it's better just to filter out XJ Flyer's delirious outpourings.

Federalist>confederalist>sovereigntist>unionist.
What an absolute load of brain fart. Someone has been reading too much Peter Hennessey and not a lot of actual history. The UK makes a habit of botching half way houses in a never-ending natural evolution. XJ reads like a second year undergraduate in PPE. Cf Barnett formula: something jim Callaghan whacked together to stand for a year... turns out the UK works around it.
The spiel around constitutional models fails the single normative test: politics.

I'm no politics graduate or undergraduate.Just an ordinary voter who knows that there's no way that any Party can put Unionist into their ideological agenda together with Indepedence and expect me to believe that they are committed to the latter when they've confirmed that they are committed to the former.If that's their idea of politics,as I've said they can forget about my vote.

As for the difference between Sovereignty over the nations affairs as opposed to a Federation of non Sovereign states in which the Federation holds the sovereignty like the UK for example,it really doesn't take a graduate to know that's the important basics in defining what type of regime is governing us.

Anyone who says that they stand for both Unionism/Federalism and anti Federalism/Independence is either a liar or just ( very ) stupid.As for the regime that is governing us anyone who says that devolution of sovereign government powers is compatible with Federalism see above.

[DJRC]

Nope. Still not a clue.

[FiF]

DJRC said:

Nope. Still not a clue.

Confess to being the guilty party giving that earlier advice to Zod.

Seriously, just push the virtual ignore button. It won't stop the dismal outpourings but at least eharding and I can carry on our game of XJ Flyer bull st bingo.

[toppstuff]

FiF said:

DJRC said:

Nope. Still not a clue.

Confess to being the guilty party giving that earlier advice to Zod.

Seriously, just push the virtual ignore button. It won't stop the dismal outpourings but at least eharding and I can carry on our game of XJ Flyer bull st bingo.

I gave up long ago. So many words. So little punctuation. Endless repetitive slogans in ever decreasing circles. The lack of spaces after each full stop also makes my teeth itch.

[edh]

Thoughtful article here by Vernon Bogdanor

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/...

[XJ Flyer]

edh said:

Thoughtful article here by Vernon Bogdanor

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/...

Or in other words just confirmation that the Cons and UKIP support of Gordon Brown in the Scottish referendum was just a cynical plan to create a Con fiefdom in 'England' .Under the guise of 'English votes ( cuts ) for the English' under the federal government which they wanted.

[turbobloke]

edh said:

Thoughtful article here by Vernon Bogdanor

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/...

OK, I read it but afterwards I gained the impression that the title should have been "Why reasoning by assertion is an absurdity that won't fool anyone..." then added "outside the Guardian's limited core readership".

It's an anti-Tory rant dressed up and toned down for CIF.

[Zod]

turbobloke said:

edh said:

Thoughtful article here by Vernon Bogdanor

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/...

OK, I read it but afterwards I gained the impression that the title should have been "Why reasoning by assertion is an absurdity that won't fool anyone..." then added "outside the Guardian's limited core readership".

It's an anti-Tory rant dressed up and toned down for CIF.

Vernon Bogdanor taught Cameron at Oxford and misses few opportunities to tweak his former student's tail. Anyone might think he was a little jealous of his student's success.

[JagLover]

edh said:

Thoughtful article here by Vernon Bogdanor

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/...

I would agree that the constitutional anomaly creating by devolution to Scotland & Wales does not have to be answered in its entirety by "English votes for English laws". Powers in a number of areas, including transport and policing, could be devolved to county councils and metropolitan authorities.

Other than that though it is special pleading by the left to justify a constitutional situation that would not be tolerated by any other developed country.

Edited by JagLover on Thursday 25th September 12:27