General Election 2015

[FuzzyAffro]

Yeah that's because their press has been feeding them that for years, especially recently. Most people are utter tubes, if the press had spent the last few years saying piranhas are a huge problem in the Thames most people would now think piranhas are a huge problem in the Thames.

You should ask them the next time someone says that to you when was the last time England had a government that won less than 2% of the available seats in England, and how they would feel if it did. Puts their moaning about Scottish MP's into a wee bit of perspective.

[welshbairn]

SNP MPs already don't vote on matters that don't affect Scotland, so if the polls are right it shouldn't be much of an issue after the election.

[SodjesSixteenIncher]

SNP MPs already don't vote on matters that don't affect Scotland, so if the polls are right it shouldn't be much of an issue after the election.

Sturgeon has commited to the SNP voting on issues that could have a knock-on effect on devolved matters - which is a slight policy change from what the current 6 MPs do.

Which of course made England lose its mind. Hilariously unreasonable considering the Tory, LD and Labour MPs in Scotland already vote on everything.

[Mr Heliums]

The impression i get from speaking to people down here is that they don't want another layer of government but they do want something done to stop scottish MPs voting on devolved matters. I think a large part of that is still because a lot of people still (incorrectly) think they subsidise us and (incorrectly) see Scottish MPs as some kind of interlopers in their parliament.

When we're talking about incorrect assumptions don't forget that many down south assume SNP MPs already vote on English only matters. The SNP policy of voluntarily abstaining from votes on matters relating to England certainly hasn't been widely known (I wasn't aware of it until relatively recently either).

[renton]

Trident is a red herring, why aren't more people getting this. The SNP will say they want rid of trident (knowing that it's incredibly unlikely). They'll then compromise, forcing Labour to compromise on something else.

I think the SNp can afford to take a principled stand on Trident simply because any notional minority Labour government will get enough votes from the Tories to pass it, no strings attached.

[Michael W]

I don't get the impression there is much desire for an English parliament down here. I've brought it up a few times and people look bemused.

I have the same impression. The ragers on the Daily Mail comments page don't represent views to devolution as a whole. Ambivalence is my experience. If there was a referendum on it I think it would possibly happen, , but not many people care enough to have it on the agenda.

Regional assemblies got a pretty hostile reception when I asked about them, though.

Ad Lib is completely correct with what he says about EVEL. It's a cop out at an attempt of correcting the devolution imbalance without seriously proposing English devolution in any form. I suspect that's mainly to do with the realisation that not many people are that bothered about it. The 'solution' is dreadful and unworkable.

[Gordon EF]

I think the SNp can afford to take a principled stand on Trident simply because any notional minority Labour government will get enough votes from the Tories to pass it, no strings attached.

I meant on it being a 'deal-breaker' in any agreement.

[FuzzyAffro]

I have the same impression. The ragers on the Daily Mail comments page don't represent views to devolution as a whole. Ambivalence is my experience. If there was a referendum on it I think it would possibly happen, , but not many people care enough to have it on the agenda.

Regional assemblies got a pretty hostile reception when I asked about them, though.

Ad Lib is completely correct with what he says about EVEL. It's a cop out at an attempt of correcting the devolution imbalance without seriously proposing English devolution in any form. I suspect that's mainly to do with the realisation that not many people are that bothered about it. The 'solution' is dreadful and unworkable.

I don't even think its that, there is nothing to be solved, therefore no 'solution' required. The West Lothian question is a minor anomaly of no importance at all only even brought up by a Labour zombie as a reason to oppose devolution for Scotland.

There are literally no issues at all that are required to be solved by an English parliament or would be solved by one. There is no desire or need for one.

Its all just a pile of nonsense whipped up by an anti-Scottish racist right-wing press in London. It was no problem for decades until it was SNP MP's doing the voting.

[Granny Danger]

Trident is a red herring, why aren't more people getting this. The SNP will say they want rid of trident (knowing that it's incredibly unlikely). They'll then compromise, forcing Labour to compromise on something else.

I think the SNp can afford to take a principled stand on Trident simply because any notional minority Labour government will get enough votes from the Tories to pass it, no strings attached.

I read somewhere that a poll of prospective Labour candidates showed that 75% were against funding the new generation of Trident. That doesn't mean there all or mostly in winnable seats, neither does it mean they would vote against the party whip if elected. It does, however, raise a number of interesting questions.

What will the PLP's position be if Labour are the party of government and are depending upon SNP support and the SNP are arguing an anti austerity economic policy? What will the impact be on Labour if their constituents in England and Wales continue to push an austerity line and need Tory votes/abstentions to get it through?

In other words a Labour government reliant on support from a more left-wing party will bring a number of issues to the fore including committing to a new generation of Trident costing £100 billion. It's a dilemma Labour have never had to face before and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that constituents in the English North-East, North-West, Midlands, Merseyside, Wales, etc. would want Labour to follow the SNP a lead. I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that many Labour Party activists would also be looking at what the SNP are proposing and thinking "Yeah, I would like some of that".

I think Sturgeon's contribution in the Leaders' Debate resonated with many Labour supporters in England because she was arguing for the alternatives to Conservatism that they wanted to hear. Played properly a large SNP presence at Westminster could achieve far more that folk realise.

[jmothecat]

I have the same impression. The ragers on the Daily Mail comments page don't represent views to devolution as a whole. Ambivalence is my experience. If there was a referendum on it I think it would possibly happen, , but not many people care enough to have it on the agenda.

Regional assemblies got a pretty hostile reception when I asked about them, though.

Ad Lib is completely correct with what he says about EVEL. It's a cop out at an attempt of correcting the devolution imbalance without seriously proposing English devolution in any form. I suspect that's mainly to do with the realisation that not many people are that bothered about it. The 'solution' is dreadful and unworkable.

I was chatting to two of my colleagues about the idea of a Yorkshire parliament. Both are extremely proud of being from Yorkshire so I thought they may have been receptive, but both thought the idea was ludicrous and couldn't believe anyone would seriously suggest it.

[FuzzyAffro]

I was chatting to two of my colleagues about the idea of a Yorkshire parliament. Both are extremely proud of being from Yorkshire so I thought they may have been receptive, but both thought the idea was ludicrous and couldn't believe anyone would seriously suggest it.

That is the same over pretty much all of England. The reason there was devolution in Scotland and Wales was people in those places felt disenfranchised by the WM system, they weren't represented adequately. This would have lead to the eventual break-up of the UK, so, after fighting it and denying it for as long as possible (particularly Labour) they eventually had to give in. Then we got devolved parliaments/assemblies.

There isn't the same need in England as there isn't the same feeling. WM doesn't disenfranchise them, it does represent them, they do have a voice there. The opposite of Scotland and Wales, so there is no need for an English parliament or regional assemblies and no desire either.

Plus its not for us to be telling them what they want or should have, if they want it let them campaign for it as we did then elect a party who have devolution for England in their manifesto. Then they will get it, but its really up to them not people up here.

[jmothecat]

That is the same over pretty much all of England. The reason there was devolution in Scotland and Wales was people in those places felt disenfranchised by the WM system, they weren't represented adequately. This would have lead to the eventual break-up of the UK, so, after fighting it and denying it for as long as possible (particularly Labour) they eventually had to give in. Then we got devolved parliaments/assemblies.

There isn't the same need in England as there isn't the same feeling. WM doesn't disenfranchise them, it does represent them, they do have a voice there. The opposite of Scotland and Wales, so there is no need for an English parliament or regional assemblies and no desire either.

Plus its not for us to be telling them what they want or should have, if they want it let them campaign for it as we did then elect a party who have devolution for England in their manifesto. Then they will get it, but its really up to them not people up here.

I don't feel Westminster represents Leeds any better or worse than it represents Aberdeen tbh.

[FuzzyAffro]

Yeah but that's totally and utterly irrevelant. Nobody had even mentioned Aberdeen or Leeds.

WM represents England much better than Scotland or Wales, that's all that matters in this context.

[jmothecat]

Yeah but that's totally and utterly irrevelant. Nobody had even mentioned Aberdeen or Leeds.

WM represents England much better than Scotland or Wales, that's all that matters in this context.

That's because England is a lot bigger than Scotland.

I don't feel Yorkshire or the North generally is any better represented than Scotland is.

[Gordon EF]

That's because England is a lot bigger than Scotland.

Eh…yep.

[welshbairn]

I read somewhere that a poll of prospective Labour candidates showed that 75% were against funding the new generation of Trident. That doesn't mean there all or mostly in winnable seats, neither does it mean they would vote against the party whip if elected. It does, however, raise a number of interesting questions.

What will the PLP's position be if Labour are the party of government and are depending upon SNP support and the SNP are arguing an anti austerity economic policy? What will the impact be on Labour if their constituents in England and Wales continue to push an austerity line and need Tory votes/abstentions to get it through?

In other words a Labour government reliant on support from a more left-wing party will bring a number of issues to the fore including committing to a new generation of Trident costing £100 billion. It's a dilemma Labour have never had to face before and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that constituents in the English North-East, North-West, Midlands, Merseyside, Wales, etc. would want Labour to follow the SNP a lead. I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that many Labour Party activists would also be looking at what the SNP are proposing and thinking "Yeah, I would like some of that".

I think Sturgeon's contribution in the Leaders' Debate resonated with many Labour supporters in England because she was arguing for the alternatives to Conservatism that they wanted to hear. Played properly a large SNP presence at Westminster could achieve far more that folk realise.

If the polls are right there will be immense pressure from the left in the Labour party to do a deal, which I have a sneaking feeling Milliband would be willing to make, despite his public reticence which I think is to appease SLAB. Unless the Tories have a disaster though, Trident won't be on the agenda, there will be enough MPs for whom it would be an absolute red line in favour of going ahead with it. There will be quite a few Labour MPs delighted to shift leftwards though.

[FuzzyAffro]

That's because England is a lot bigger than Scotland.

I don't feel Yorkshire or the North generally is any better represented than Scotland is.

Again, completely and utterly irrelevant. Yorkshire is a county, Scotland is a country. All that matters is how Scotland is represented at WM compared to England, not Yorkshire. And obviously we all know that is barely at all and of no relevance.

You just can't help but spout this infuriating Britnat nonsense.

Scotland is a country part of a political union with three other countries (or two and an occupied territory). Because one is ten times the size of the other three WM represents that one much better than the other three.

That is a problem, that's why we've had decades of devolution demands and WM parties opposing devolution.

[Gordon EF]

I don't feel Yorkshire or the North generally is any better represented than Scotland is.

The areas best represented by WM are Tory/Labour marginals. The more of these there are in any region you might want to name, the better westminster represents that area.

The 'region' of England i live in (North West) has a lot more Lab/Tory marginals than Scotland does.

[jmothecat]

Again, completely and utterly irrelevant. Yorkshire is a county, Scotland is a country. All that matters is how Scotland is represented at WM compared to England, not Yorkshire. And obviously we all know that is barely at all and of no relevance.

You just can't help but spout this infuriating Britnat nonsense.

Scotland is a country part of a political union with three other countries (or two and an occupied territory). Because one is ten times the size of the other three WM represents that one much better than the other three.

That is a problem, that's why we've had decades of devolution demands and WM parties opposing devolution.

You can't compare Scotland and England like that. Why does Scotland being a 'country' and Yorkshire being a 'county' make representation of either any different? Both are regions, both are fairly represented in regards to their respective sizes.

[welshbairn]

That's because England is a lot bigger than Scotland.

I don't feel Yorkshire or the North generally is any better represented than Scotland is.

I've got a few friends in Liverpool who are very, very jealous.