Don't think it'll take more then 1 election for Labour to be back in power, depends a lot on who the leader is (hopefully a Miliband) and just how nasty the cuts are. The Lib Dems will be tarred with the same brush the Tories will be.
The emergency budget is going to be interesting, 20% VAT and the NI increase staying in for employees will go down like a cup of cold sick, as voters were kept in the dark over the election by all parties into just how painful it's going to be for a while.
Assuming he stands, Cruddas will be the new Labour leader. Miliband (D) is too closely associated with Blair and is Labour's Portillo - he wants it too much. His brother has a better chance.
[cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]Don't think it'll take more then 1 election for Labour to be back in power, depends a lot on who the leader is (hopefully a Miliband) and just how nasty the cuts are. The Lib Dems will be tarred with the same brush the Tories will be.
The emergency budget is going to be interesting, 20% VAT and the NI increase staying in for employees will go down like a cup of cold sick, as voters were kept in the dark over the election by all parties into just how painful it's going to be for a while.
Everyone knows that Labour would have been forced into a VAT rise so their howls of disapproval will ring hollow. The NI increase was in the Labour pipeline and leaving it in place for employees is broadly offset by moving towards implementation of the Lib Dem policy of a 10k personal allowance for income tax.
Don't underestimate voters' recognition that what needs to be done will be painful and that the reason it will be so painful is in large (though not sole) part the result of Labour's building a massive structural deficit [taking into account off-balance sheet items and pension liabilities] prior to the financial crash ("failing to mend the roof when the sun was shining").
Hence the result of next election is totally unpredictable - there's a lot to happen over the next 5 years at home and abroad.
What I don't like about British politics is you are kind of forced by the electoral system to define which party you belong to. I found it a struggle to find a party which had policies which I agreed with. I liked a bit of the tories, a bit of labour and a bit of the liberal democrats.
This coalition has forced the Conservatives and Libs to adjust their policies and its much closer to my own personal views. If they can make it work I'd be happy. What they need is for the people and newspapers to take a step back and give them a year or so to try and make it work.
In terms of the talks I am going to express a personal opinion that the problem was attitude. The Labour government have had this paternalistic/ patronising attitude that they know best. I think it is a natural thing that happens to any party when they have been in government for so long. Felt the tories had this attitude in the eighties.
My point is the tories were flexible in talks with the liberals because they were both coming from the opposition benches. The discussions would have been more equal.
I do agree that Lab/Lib would have struggled to govern with so few seats. But also the coalition would have struggled because the Liberals did not know who the leader of the Labour party was going to be. Not many people would get married to a stranger.
The co-alition beetween Labour and the liberals was never a real starter, add in the Scottish and Welsh and it would have been hopeless. Relying on the NI would have been even more a pact off odd balls, probably incapable of agreeing over anything except they could not agree!. As other commentators have stated best to regroup elect a new leader and formulate new policies, but need to be an alternative to the current goverment. I expect there is going to be some really toughmeasures in the next 12 months to address, Labour if they hope to get elected need a relevent set of policies, as an alternative to the 'middle ground' that are radical..... there lies the problem, or dileama for that lot!
Libcon are to extend the government term from the current 4 year to 5 years (well you would wouldn't you?) with electoral reform...cuts to the public sector and pay freeze with the exception of MPs pay rise of course, which must go ahead...now we wouldn't want them to go short would we when everything esle goes up? I'm sure the Chuckle Brothers will do a grand job together.
The term for a government has always been 5 years. No change there jaya, all they are saying is that they expect it to last a full 5 years rather than what has happened in the past when it was called early when the government was in a strong position. Though in reality, it cannot last that long if they fall out and the government lose a vote of no confidence. I doubt this will go the full 5 years tbh, it is a long time to keep a coalition together.
Rothco why arnt the NUS out on the streets about students fees in England ? why arnt they up in arms that students will be in debt to the tune of +£15,000 in England but its all free in Scotalnd ? whay ant the NUS up in arms that Scotish/Welsh /NI MPs can vote to keep student fees in England ? Why didnt the NUS get on the streets when Mendleson was gobbing off about cuting money to Unis of aprox £135 million ?
why the silence ???? better to be political and not upset Labour than actually stand up for the students ?
What is the NUS opionion of the student fee issue re Scotland and England ?
[cite]Posted By: Jayajosh[/cite]Libcon are to extend the government term from the current 4 year to 5 years (well you would wouldn't you?) with electoral reform...cuts to the public sector and pay freeze with the exception of MPs pay rise of course, which must go ahead...now we wouldn't want them to go short would we when everything esle goes up? I'm sure the Chuckle Brothers will do a grand job together.
As Steve Dowman points out the five year term is the norm.
Ministers have just awarded themselves a 5% pay..........................cut
And frozen for five years.
Whether you or I or anyone likes them/the arrangement. It's what we've got. How about we give them a chance? Judge them in a year or so!
Not really a fair point any more. The government of the UK has an "overwhelming majority" of the votes and seats in England, and sizable minorities in Scotland and Wales. Representation across the country - that's good. England is safe for the next five years, or as safe as it would be with an English Parliament.
Nonsense. England is disadvantaged by lop-sided devolution, and more so by the total inability of any of the 'big three' parties to recognise or address the many problems it has caused. Not one of the three party leaders ever said the word England in the TV debates. Even when arguing about policies for England.
Scots/Welsh and N.Irish constituency MP's will continue to vote policies upon England that are nothing to do with their constituents.
The threat of English 'regionalisation' has not gone away. In fact the Lib-Dems are strongly in favour of it (or at least, were)
There may however be a glimmer of light on the horizon. As the new Gov't has announced the setting up of a commision to look into the 'West Lothian Question'
Those of my political persuasion will not think this goes far enough (it should address the whole 'English Question') and i'm not going to get carried away by it. But maybe, just maybe...
England has around 85% of the population of the UK, maybe more. Can you think of any country with a federalised system that has such a large percentage of the population in one region. I'd settle for any country with three or more regions but where one has around 50% of the total population.
Regionalisation is a big fear for you. The people of Plymouth and the people of Sunderland - do you think they'd be governed more effectively by one big region including the two cities and everything in between or by smaller regions closer to them that have areas with similar concerns?
No one is questioning the borders of England, by the way.
85% of the UK population, so what? Under a Federal administration, where UK matters are decided by the Federal gov't. the four national Parliaments would be responsible for Devolved matters within their own country. In this situation size doesn't matter! Federal Gov't tax income would be distributed per head of population as now. The difference being it would be equal throughout the home nations. rather than 'Barnetted' as now.
The people of Plymouth and Sunderland would be better served by an English Government overseeing their own county administrations. Rather than by a British Gov't that doesn't even acknowledge their country exists.
[cite]Posted By: Daggs[/cite]
The people of Plymouth and Sunderland would be better served by an English Government overseeing their own county administrations. Rather than by a British Gov't that doesn't even acknowledge their country exists.
I would agree but you haven't explained why, as IA suggests, they would not be even better served by a South west or North East regional council.
I know you oppose it on grounds that England should have the same as Wales and Scotland and I feel that is a strong argument but is it better government than 7 or so English regional governments.
Other than the equality issue of similar parliament for the four nations, which I agree with on a fairness basis, I not yet persuaded that I would be better off with an English parliament than with a stronger, more powerful version of the London Assembly.
I am genuinely interested in what the pros and cons are.
The most significant con (what an appropriate term) as far as i am concerned is the threat of England being chopped into nine Euro-regions (not Scotland or Wales though) Thus for ever losing the identity of this country.
I know some believe this claim to be fanciful. But it is true, a bit of research and you will find it in a draft 'regionalisation of Europe' plan.
If you think back over the history of the Europe programme. Who back in the seventies would have believed when we voted for a 'Common Market' we would find ourselves having approx 70% of rules, laws and policies dictated to us by what is now the EU?
I am an English Patriot, i make no apology for that. I believe we have the right of self determination that has been given to others.
Well as a Liberal/and Lib Dem for many many years I am really pleased with what has happened although there is some apprehension.
For the last twenty years many on the centre left dreamt of the reallignment of the centre left into a progressive grouping that would keep the right wing Tories/Thatcherites out of power for a generation.
That dream has gone. Who's fault was it? I am afraid it was Gordon Brown and many of his colleagues in the Labour Government. For this reallignment to have taken place needed a move to proper PR, not AV which is just a slightly different version of FPTP.
Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown struck a deal before 1997 that they would have a constitutional commission under Woy Jenkins to bring forward proposalsto change the electoral system. Woy came up with AV + which essentially is PR (although not STV - the best version). Gordon Brown blocked it. Blair told Ashdown that he was sick of raising it with Brown who would not countenance it. Whether or not you believe that Blair was really in favour is a matter of opinion. What is not in doubt is that in 13 years of a large Labour Majority, the party did not press forward with PR for Westminster. The brutal truth is that many Labour MPs jealously guard the tribal nature of old politics and want to hold onto the current system. Many of those are in Scotland where the Nats, and Tories would fair much better under PR (as they have in the Scottish Assembly).
I never thought there would be such a realligment for the tribal reasons stated above. For the Lib Dems to succeed in their goal of PR, they needed to win massively under FPTP, a very unlikely scenario although a tantalising proposition for a week following the first PM debate.
So to the Coalition. Well as others have said, the numbers for a rainbow of Lib/Lab/Nat/Green etc just didn't stack up and wouldn't have been stable enough. Labour MPs in their droves were making it clear that they would not want to offer any electoral reform beyond an AV referendum and by that time Cameron had offered it anyway.
So the Lib Dems were faced with a choice.
1. A strong negotiated positive full coalition with the Tories where compromise on manifesto promises would bring about major planks of Lib Dem policy being laid down and a chance to shape the future for the best interests of the country (as they would see it). With a five year fixed term lock in
2. A pact so that a minority Tory administration could be nodded through with the possibility of a General Election called by the only party with any money left - the Tories, at their behest
3. Go into opposition at an extremely perilous time for our country, let the Tories try and govern on their own with a General Election only months away, with all the damage to the financial markets that uncertainty would bring
I think they negotiated hard, put the country first, and have made a pretty decent deal which offers the chance of stability and an opportunity to rectify the economic mass.
The deal they have made brings in (phased) the £10K tax free threshold (and this largely negates the NI increase for employees). There are plans to help under previledged kids in school. There are plans for building a green economy, and there will be political and electoral reform programmes including an elected HOL (by PR) and fixed term governments. Plus a number of other Lib Dem policies. Is it perfect? Well its a compromise and no compromises are perfect but it means that instead of a minority of voters getting all they wanted, a majority of voters get some of what they wanted. Thats fair from where I sit.
They haven't secured everything but for those who question PR and coalitions, we now have a government that is made up of parties who in total received 59% of the popular vote and some of the policies those voters voted for are now being implemented. Since the War no Government has governed with even 50% of the popular vote yet have been able to implement their manifesto commitments in full.
Nick Clegg said that he wanted a different kind of politics. He said that he wanted the party who had the most votes/seats to have first chance at forming a government, he has dellvered this. Cameron wanted to take the Tories into the centre ground but has been unable to shake off the old Tory image. This deal delivers both leaders the opportunity for change that they spoke of prior to May 6th.
Is it political suicide for the Lib Dems? Well it may be. But in my view its the right thing for men of honour to do, to try and govern in the national interest. In the end the delivery and the voters will tell.
[cite]Posted By: Daggs[/cite]The most significant con (what an appropriate term) as far as i am concerned is the threat of England being chopped into nine Euro-regions (not Scotland or Wales though) Thus for ever losing the identity of this country.
I know some believe this claim to be fanciful. But it is true, a bit of research and you will find it in a draft 'regionalisation of Europe' plan.
If you think back over the history of the Europe programme. Who back in the seventies would have believed when we voted for a 'Common Market' we would find ourselves having approx 70% of rules, laws and policies dictated to us by what is now the EU?
I am an English Patriot, i make no apology for that. I believe we have the right of self determination that has been given to others.
What bits of the English identity would be lost?
85% of the country is important because it means that England is very close to being the whole country anyway. I presume the English Democrats have looked at the many other countries with federalised government, so one country with three or more regions where one of the regions has 50% of the population can't be that hard to find. Can it?
[cite]Posted By: Daggs[/cite]The most significant con (what an appropriate term) as far as i am concerned is the threat of England being chopped into nine Euro-regions (not Scotland or Wales though) Thus for ever losing the identity of this country.
I know some believe this claim to be fanciful. But it is true, a bit of research and you will find it in a draft 'regionalisation of Europe' plan.
If you think back over the history of the Europe programme. Who back in the seventies would have believed when we voted for a 'Common Market' we would find ourselves having approx 70% of rules, laws and policies dictated to us by what is now the EU?
I am an English Patriot, i make no apology for that. I believe we have the right of self determination that has been given to others.
What bits of the English identity would be lost?
85% of the country is important because it means that England is very close to being the whole country anyway. I presume the English Democrats have looked at the many other countries with federalised government, so one country with three or more regions where one of the regions has 50% of the population can't be that hard to find. Can it?
I believe in the long term aim of a federal Britain with an English Parliament. The problem is that there really isn't much ground swell of support for that to be formed. The Tories have talked about English MPs only being able to vote on English matters like schooling. I think probably, on balance I favour this as a first step.
What I am not in favour of is English Nationalism. I am British. I value my Britishness, I support England but I want the ties between the British nations to remain strong not weakened into seeing Scots and Welsh as foreigners. A Federal parliamentary structure would keep Great Britain and NI strong but allow many decisions to made more locally to recognise cultural and in some cases legal differences between the nations.
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Devolution -democratic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! who the f**k for ? was it democratic for the people of England ? was/is it democratic that Scots/Welsh MPs can vote in their new Parliaments on issues that effect Scotland and Wales but can also vote in the Commons on "english issues"
yes please do explain how that is DEMOCRATIC to the people of England ?
The Scottish parliament was an embarrassing waste of money, can't see why anyone would want an English one. Thommo's notion of non-English MPs being excluded from English only votes is a much more sensible idea.
Daggs, you've not really answered the question. Why is an English parliament better government than a series of regional councils.
Playing the "it's the break up of England by the EU" doesn't wash, with me at least. There is no realistic proposal for that in the UK or in Europe despite mentions in obscure EU docs. Spain is not going to broken up by the EU nor is Germany or Italy, all who have more distinct regions and language groups, and neither is England.
You said "I am an English Patriot, i make no apology for that. I believe we have the right of self determination that has been given to others."
I'm an English Patriot too and there is no need for either of us to apolgise but I am also a Londoner and British. I don't see any conflict in that either.
What are the benefits of an English Parliament over English Regional Parliaments apart from "they've got one so we want one too"
[cite]Posted By: Goonerhater[/cite]Devolution -democratic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! who the f**k for ? was it democratic for the people of England ?was/is it democratic that Scots/Welsh MPs can vote in their new Parliaments on issues that effect Scotland and Wales but can also vote in the Commons on "english issues"
yes please do explain how that is DEMOCRATIC to the people of England ?
The Scottish parliament was an embarrassing waste of money, can't see why anyone would want an English one. Thommo's notion of non-English MPs being excluded from English only votes is a much more sensible idea.
I find myself agreeing with Morti, and Thommo, again. Solve the West Lothian problem (which is unfair and bad government) and we are done.
Good post Bing, think you have hit the nail on the head. Let's hope the coalition can work together for the good of the country. Good to see the cabinet start by taking a pay cut, never heard of such a thing under the working çlass heroes of labour.
[cite]Posted By: Daggs[/cite]Good piece Bing. Whilst i find some LIb-Dem policies a bit daft (they may now have dropped the daftest) I'm willing to give this coalition a chance.
Are you talking about their immigration and Trident replacement policies? Both have been shelved although I believe that whilst the new Govt will place an order for Trident Submarines, they have agreed to look at alternatives given we are talking about the new subs not coming in for many years yet.
Personally I'd love to debate the illegal immigration "amnesty" which was actually sensible and pragmatic but open to attack. What those who attacked it didn't tell you is that we have an effective amnesty anyway under the current arrangement after somebody lives here for 14 years. The policy was designed as a "one off" to flush people out, get them into the system whilst at the same time tightening the border controls. This is very different to oft quoted Spanish example which were offered every 4 years and with no tightening of borders. But hey ho, the dog whistlers were able to get the "daft" and "fear" ears pricking.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Good post Bing, think you have hit the nail on the head. Let's hope the coalition can work together for the good of the country. Good to see the cabinet start by taking a pay cut, never heard of such a thing under the working çlass heroes of labour.
[cite]Posted By: Steve Dowman[/cite]Good to see the cabinet start by taking a pay cut, never heard of such a thing under the working çlass heroes of labour.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Good, well considered piece Bing.
Daggs, you've not really answered the question. Why is an English parliament better government than a series of regional councils.
Playing the "it's the break up of England by the EU" doesn't wash, with me at least. There is no realistic proposal for that in the UK or in Europe despite mentions in obscure EU docs. Spain is not going to broken up by the EU nor is Germany or Italy, all who have more distinct regions and language groups, and neither is England.
You said "I am an English Patriot, i make no apology for that. I believe we have the right of self determination that has been given to others."
I'm an English Patriot too and there is no need for either of us to apolgise but I am also a Londoner and British. I don't see any conflict in that either.
What are the benefits of an English Parliament over English Regional Parliaments apart from "they've got one so we want one too"
O/K Henry. sorry for the delay, i had to cook, then eat dinner!
I can't give you a better answer than wanting England to remain in one piece. You doubt there any plans to break us up. I fear they are true. We ain't gonna agree on it!
As the system is now, we are the forgotten nation in Europe. Politically we don't exist. The British Gov't (the last one) waffled on about 'this country' It would constantly cloud England and Britain..why?
English taxes are given to the Celtic nations to fund their largesse (see Gooherhaters student rant for one example) there are plenty more. That won't change until all four countries are treated equally.
I used to consider myself British, passionately so. In 1998 we were betrayed by Blair and New Labour. I am now English and English only.
Bing. I would like to see you tell the Scots "England is close to being the whole country"
My concerns are entirely for England and to a degree Britain. Not other countries.
Good guess with the LIb-Dem immigration policy. A piece of idiocy at it's best.
But get this. I think we should scrap Trident. Why spend billions on weapons we almost certainly will never use? and if we did we would all be vapourised.
You say you belive in "the long term aim of a Federal Britain with an English Parliament" So do I, so why you arguing against me?
Henry can you now grill Bing on his reasons please. My wife has sent me to the pub...................honestly.
Comments
The emergency budget is going to be interesting, 20% VAT and the NI increase staying in for employees will go down like a cup of cold sick, as voters were kept in the dark over the election by all parties into just how painful it's going to be for a while.
Everyone knows that Labour would have been forced into a VAT rise so their howls of disapproval will ring hollow. The NI increase was in the Labour pipeline and leaving it in place for employees is broadly offset by moving towards implementation of the Lib Dem policy of a 10k personal allowance for income tax.
Don't underestimate voters' recognition that what needs to be done will be painful and that the reason it will be so painful is in large (though not sole) part the result of Labour's building a massive structural deficit [taking into account off-balance sheet items and pension liabilities] prior to the financial crash ("failing to mend the roof when the sun was shining").
Hence the result of next election is totally unpredictable - there's a lot to happen over the next 5 years at home and abroad.
This coalition has forced the Conservatives and Libs to adjust their policies and its much closer to my own personal views. If they can make it work I'd be happy. What they need is for the people and newspapers to take a step back and give them a year or so to try and make it work.
In terms of the talks I am going to express a personal opinion that the problem was attitude. The Labour government have had this paternalistic/ patronising attitude that they know best. I think it is a natural thing that happens to any party when they have been in government for so long. Felt the tories had this attitude in the eighties.
My point is the tories were flexible in talks with the liberals because they were both coming from the opposition benches. The discussions would have been more equal.
I do agree that Lab/Lib would have struggled to govern with so few seats. But also the coalition would have struggled because the Liberals did not know who the leader of the Labour party was going to be. Not many people would get married to a stranger.
why the silence ????
better to be political and not upset Labour than actually stand up for the students ?
What is the NUS opionion of the student fee issue re Scotland and England ?
As Steve Dowman points out the five year term is the norm.
Ministers have just awarded themselves a 5% pay..........................cut
And frozen for five years.
Whether you or I or anyone likes them/the arrangement. It's what we've got. How about we give them a chance? Judge them in a year or so!
Scots/Welsh and N.Irish constituency MP's will continue to vote policies upon England that are nothing to do with their constituents.
The threat of English 'regionalisation' has not gone away. In fact the Lib-Dems are strongly in favour of it (or at least, were)
There may however be a glimmer of light on the horizon. As the new Gov't has announced the setting up of a commision to look into the 'West Lothian Question'
Those of my political persuasion will not think this goes far enough (it should address the whole 'English Question') and i'm not going to get carried away by it. But maybe, just maybe...
England has around 85% of the population of the UK, maybe more. Can you think of any country with a federalised system that has such a large percentage of the population in one region. I'd settle for any country with three or more regions but where one has around 50% of the total population.
Regionalisation is a big fear for you. The people of Plymouth and the people of Sunderland - do you think they'd be governed more effectively by one big region including the two cities and everything in between or by smaller regions closer to them that have areas with similar concerns?
No one is questioning the borders of England, by the way.
The people of Plymouth and Sunderland would be better served by an English Government overseeing their own county administrations. Rather than by a British Gov't that doesn't even acknowledge their country exists.
I would agree but you haven't explained why, as IA suggests, they would not be even better served by a South west or North East regional council.
I know you oppose it on grounds that England should have the same as Wales and Scotland and I feel that is a strong argument but is it better government than 7 or so English regional governments.
Other than the equality issue of similar parliament for the four nations, which I agree with on a fairness basis, I not yet persuaded that I would be better off with an English parliament than with a stronger, more powerful version of the London Assembly.
I am genuinely interested in what the pros and cons are.
I know some believe this claim to be fanciful. But it is true, a bit of research and you will find it in a draft 'regionalisation of Europe' plan.
If you think back over the history of the Europe programme. Who back in the seventies would have believed when we voted for a 'Common Market' we would find ourselves having approx 70% of rules, laws and policies dictated to us by what is now the EU?
I am an English Patriot, i make no apology for that. I believe we have the right of self determination that has been given to others.
For the last twenty years many on the centre left dreamt of the reallignment of the centre left into a progressive grouping that would keep the right wing Tories/Thatcherites out of power for a generation.
That dream has gone. Who's fault was it? I am afraid it was Gordon Brown and many of his colleagues in the Labour Government. For this reallignment to have taken place needed a move to proper PR, not AV which is just a slightly different version of FPTP.
Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown struck a deal before 1997 that they would have a constitutional commission under Woy Jenkins to bring forward proposalsto change the electoral system. Woy came up with AV + which essentially is PR (although not STV - the best version). Gordon Brown blocked it. Blair told Ashdown that he was sick of raising it with Brown who would not countenance it. Whether or not you believe that Blair was really in favour is a matter of opinion. What is not in doubt is that in 13 years of a large Labour Majority, the party did not press forward with PR for Westminster. The brutal truth is that many Labour MPs jealously guard the tribal nature of old politics and want to hold onto the current system. Many of those are in Scotland where the Nats, and Tories would fair much better under PR (as they have in the Scottish Assembly).
I never thought there would be such a realligment for the tribal reasons stated above. For the Lib Dems to succeed in their goal of PR, they needed to win massively under FPTP, a very unlikely scenario although a tantalising proposition for a week following the first PM debate.
So to the Coalition. Well as others have said, the numbers for a rainbow of Lib/Lab/Nat/Green etc just didn't stack up and wouldn't have been stable enough. Labour MPs in their droves were making it clear that they would not want to offer any electoral reform beyond an AV referendum and by that time Cameron had offered it anyway.
So the Lib Dems were faced with a choice.
1. A strong negotiated positive full coalition with the Tories where compromise on manifesto promises would bring about major planks of Lib Dem policy being laid down and a chance to shape the future for the best interests of the country (as they would see it). With a five year fixed term lock in
2. A pact so that a minority Tory administration could be nodded through with the possibility of a General Election called by the only party with any money left - the Tories, at their behest
3. Go into opposition at an extremely perilous time for our country, let the Tories try and govern on their own with a General Election only months away, with all the damage to the financial markets that uncertainty would bring
I think they negotiated hard, put the country first, and have made a pretty decent deal which offers the chance of stability and an opportunity to rectify the economic mass.
The deal they have made brings in (phased) the £10K tax free threshold (and this largely negates the NI increase for employees). There are plans to help under previledged kids in school. There are plans for building a green economy, and there will be political and electoral reform programmes including an elected HOL (by PR) and fixed term governments. Plus a number of other Lib Dem policies. Is it perfect? Well its a compromise and no compromises are perfect but it means that instead of a minority of voters getting all they wanted, a majority of voters get some of what they wanted. Thats fair from where I sit.
They haven't secured everything but for those who question PR and coalitions, we now have a government that is made up of parties who in total received 59% of the popular vote and some of the policies those voters voted for are now being implemented. Since the War no Government has governed with even 50% of the popular vote yet have been able to implement their manifesto commitments in full.
Nick Clegg said that he wanted a different kind of politics. He said that he wanted the party who had the most votes/seats to have first chance at forming a government, he has dellvered this. Cameron wanted to take the Tories into the centre ground but has been unable to shake off the old Tory image. This deal delivers both leaders the opportunity for change that they spoke of prior to May 6th.
Is it political suicide for the Lib Dems? Well it may be. But in my view its the right thing for men of honour to do, to try and govern in the national interest. In the end the delivery and the voters will tell.
What bits of the English identity would be lost?
85% of the country is important because it means that England is very close to being the whole country anyway. I presume the English Democrats have looked at the many other countries with federalised government, so one country with three or more regions where one of the regions has 50% of the population can't be that hard to find. Can it?
I believe in the long term aim of a federal Britain with an English Parliament. The problem is that there really isn't much ground swell of support for that to be formed. The Tories have talked about English MPs only being able to vote on English matters like schooling. I think probably, on balance I favour this as a first step.
What I am not in favour of is English Nationalism. I am British. I value my Britishness, I support England but I want the ties between the British nations to remain strong not weakened into seeing Scots and Welsh as foreigners. A Federal parliamentary structure would keep Great Britain and NI strong but allow many decisions to made more locally to recognise cultural and in some cases legal differences between the nations.
The Scottish parliament was an embarrassing waste of money, can't see why anyone would want an English one. Thommo's notion of non-English MPs being excluded from English only votes is a much more sensible idea.
Daggs, you've not really answered the question. Why is an English parliament better government than a series of regional councils.
Playing the "it's the break up of England by the EU" doesn't wash, with me at least. There is no realistic proposal for that in the UK or in Europe despite mentions in obscure EU docs. Spain is not going to broken up by the EU nor is Germany or Italy, all who have more distinct regions and language groups, and neither is England.
You said "I am an English Patriot, i make no apology for that. I believe we have the right of self determination that has been given to others."
I'm an English Patriot too and there is no need for either of us to apolgise but I am also a Londoner and British. I don't see any conflict in that either.
What are the benefits of an English Parliament over English Regional Parliaments apart from "they've got one so we want one too"
I find myself agreeing with Morti, and Thommo, again. Solve the West Lothian problem (which is unfair and bad government) and we are done.
Are you talking about their immigration and Trident replacement policies? Both have been shelved although I believe that whilst the new Govt will place an order for Trident Submarines, they have agreed to look at alternatives given we are talking about the new subs not coming in for many years yet.
Personally I'd love to debate the illegal immigration "amnesty" which was actually sensible and pragmatic but open to attack. What those who attacked it didn't tell you is that we have an effective amnesty anyway under the current arrangement after somebody lives here for 14 years. The policy was designed as a "one off" to flush people out, get them into the system whilst at the same time tightening the border controls. This is very different to oft quoted Spanish example which were offered every 4 years and with no tightening of borders. But hey ho, the dog whistlers were able to get the "daft" and "fear" ears pricking.
By the way, you were a VERY busy twitterer during the election! Re-tweeted so much stuff I couldn't read it all ;-)
I hadn't seen that Steve. I like it.
Have to agree with that ... excellent move.
O/K Henry. sorry for the delay, i had to cook, then eat dinner!
I can't give you a better answer than wanting England to remain in one piece. You doubt there any plans to break us up. I fear they are true. We ain't gonna agree on it!
As the system is now, we are the forgotten nation in Europe. Politically we don't exist. The British Gov't (the last one) waffled on about 'this country' It would constantly cloud England and Britain..why?
English taxes are given to the Celtic nations to fund their largesse (see Gooherhaters student rant for one example) there are plenty more. That won't change until all four countries are treated equally.
I used to consider myself British, passionately so. In 1998 we were betrayed by Blair and New Labour. I am now English and English only.
Bing. I would like to see you tell the Scots "England is close to being the whole country"
My concerns are entirely for England and to a degree Britain. Not other countries.
Good guess with the LIb-Dem immigration policy. A piece of idiocy at it's best.
But get this. I think we should scrap Trident. Why spend billions on weapons we almost certainly will never use? and if we did we would all be vapourised.
You say you belive in "the long term aim of a Federal Britain with an English Parliament" So do I, so why you arguing against me?
Henry can you now grill Bing on his reasons please. My wife has sent me to the pub...................honestly.