Snap General Election called

[Digby]

That already looks woefully out of date

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://twitter.com/RussInCheshire
5. Pledging to unify the nation, he decried lawyers as “lefty do-gooders”, hot on the cloven-heels of Priti Patel

Just to focus on one item in this list ...
Having made this complaint, it's clear Johnson knows he has zero chance of ever being accused of doing good.

[Digby]

And still Margaret Ferrier hasn't resigned. Other than she very likely can't get another job because there are no other jobs there can't be a reason she thinks it okay to stay, the nonsense about Covid making her act out of character is just pathetic

[Sandydragon]

And still Margaret Ferrier hasn't resigned. Other than she very likely can't get another job because there are no other jobs there can't be a reason she thinks it okay to stay, the nonsense about Covid making her act out of character is just pathetic

Shame the police investigation was discontinued.

[Digby]

And still Margaret Ferrier hasn't resigned. Other than she very likely can't get another job because there are no other jobs there can't be a reason she thinks it okay to stay, the nonsense about Covid making her act out of character is just pathetic

Shame the police investigation was discontinued.

In Scotland too? I understand why they stopped in England given the advice, I don't understand how it's acceptable for her not to resign just because she wants to be excused her horrendous foul up

[Zhivago]

With the ongoing arguments over how to implement covid restrictions between regional and national governments, this is surely an opportunity for a review of how government is implemented in the UK. An English Parliament might not be the answer, but regional assemblies could be effective instead, with a reduced function for the HOC.

I really think that adopting some form of federalism is the only way we can save the union. Could work quite nicely on a regional basis with maybe 3 or 4 English regions. Ideally would have a bit more balance between celtic nations and England. The federal aspect could be in the house of lords, while retaining the HoC. Stop all these silly appointments to the HoL, where it keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Maybe something like
Devolved parliaments: Scotland, NI, Wales, Northern England, Midlands, South East, South West. Could also revive some old names like Mercia, Northumbria etc.

HoC: stays the same

HoL: scrap appointment by PM, scrap last vestiges of hereditary and spiritual peers, make it elected with equal number of representatives from each region.

[Which Tyler]

I really think that adopting some form of federalism is the only way we can save the union. Could work quite nicely on a regional basis with maybe 3 or 4 English regions. Ideally would have a bit more balance between celtic nations and England. The federal aspect could be in the house of lords, while retaining the HoC. Stop all these silly appointments to the HoL, where it keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Maybe something like
Devolved parliaments: Scotland, NI, Wales, Northern England, Midlands, South East, South West. Could also revive some old names like Mercia, Northumbria etc.

HoC: stays the same

HoL: scrap appointment by PM, scrap last vestiges of hereditary and spiritual peers, make it elected with equal number of representatives from each region.

I've proposed similar on a previous version of this board (before Breshit was even on the horizon). IIRC I combined the administrative regions (with some redrawing) to provide 4 English regions of approximately 14M - as with yourself, reviving the old Wessex / Mercia / Northumbria names + London; each with both a cultural/political "Capital" and a wealth generating one (York & Manchester; Winchester & Bristol; Tamworth & Birmingham).
Each region with greater devolved power as Scotland has (and giving Wales and NI the same amount).

IIRC, I was suggesting elections to the regional parliament under a system similar to the NZ elections; and then each of those parliaments sending representatives to a shrunk HoC in Westminster. Something like 3 MPs per million of population (so about 40 for each English region, 9-10 for Wales, 16-17 for Scotland and 5-6 for NI) Strict PR from the region up to national.
Each parliament, whether national or regional, should have about 200 sitting members; as IMO, more than that is just unwieldy; and with proper devolution of powers, they shouldn't be overwhelmed by the workload. Which means that, for example, an English region ends up with 240 RMPs; of whom 40 are shipped off to Westminster.

Ideally, I'd ban party politics as well; but human nature simply wouldn't allow that; whether it's parties, or individuals making alliances.

HoL can simply be scrapped - could always have non-emergency national decisions needing to be ratified by the regions if you want a check on power; but introducing PR should make that way less important.

[Zhivago]

I really think that adopting some form of federalism is the only way we can save the union. Could work quite nicely on a regional basis with maybe 3 or 4 English regions. Ideally would have a bit more balance between celtic nations and England. The federal aspect could be in the house of lords, while retaining the HoC. Stop all these silly appointments to the HoL, where it keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Maybe something like
Devolved parliaments: Scotland, NI, Wales, Northern England, Midlands, South East, South West. Could also revive some old names like Mercia, Northumbria etc.

HoC: stays the same

HoL: scrap appointment by PM, scrap last vestiges of hereditary and spiritual peers, make it elected with equal number of representatives from each region.

I've proposed similar on a previous version of this board (before Breshit was even on the horizon). IIRC I combined the administrative regions (with some redrawing) to provide 4 English regions of approximately the same population size / GDP - as with yourself, reviving the old Wessex / Mercia / Northumbria names + London; each with both a cultural/political "Capital" and a wealth generating one.
Each region with as much (or greater) devolved power as Scotland had (and giving Wales and NI the same amount)
IIRC, I was suggesting elections to the regional parliament under a system similar to the NZ elections; and then each of those parliaments sending representatives to a shrunk HoC in Westminster

With such a system I would eventually (after some number of years because too much change too rapidly would not be accepted by the general public) also scrap the royalty and have a rotating head of state from one of the devolved entities maybe 6 month or 1 year rotation. Similar to how the EU has a rotating presidency.

[Puja]

I really think that adopting some form of federalism is the only way we can save the union. Could work quite nicely on a regional basis with maybe 3 or 4 English regions. Ideally would have a bit more balance between celtic nations and England. The federal aspect could be in the house of lords, while retaining the HoC. Stop all these silly appointments to the HoL, where it keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Maybe something like
Devolved parliaments: Scotland, NI, Wales, Northern England, Midlands, South East, South West. Could also revive some old names like Mercia, Northumbria etc.

HoC: stays the same

HoL: scrap appointment by PM, scrap last vestiges of hereditary and spiritual peers, make it elected with equal number of representatives from each region.

I've proposed similar on a previous version of this board (before Breshit was even on the horizon). IIRC I combined the administrative regions (with some redrawing) to provide 4 English regions of approximately the same population size / GDP - as with yourself, reviving the old Wessex / Mercia / Northumbria names + London; each with both a cultural/political "Capital" and a wealth generating one.
Each region with as much (or greater) devolved power as Scotland had (and giving Wales and NI the same amount)
IIRC, I was suggesting elections to the regional parliament under a system similar to the NZ elections; and then each of those parliaments sending representatives to a shrunk HoC in Westminster

With such a system I would eventually (after some number of years because too much change too rapidly would not be accepted by the general public) also scrap the royalty and have a rotating head of state from one of the devolved entities maybe 6 month or 1 year rotation. Similar to how the EU has a rotating presidency.

I am interested by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

It'll never happen though. The only way electoral reform can happen is either through a big party deciding to vote for Christmas (hah!) or widespread public demand. The former is impossible and the latter is close to impossible given the (deliberate) undereducation of the electorate.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

I am interested by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

It'll never happen though. The only way electoral reform can happen is either through a big party deciding to vote for Christmas (hah!) or widespread public demand. The former is impossible and the latter is close to impossible given the (deliberate) undereducation of the electorate.

Puja

If it helps, I'd also name my potential political party "None of the above"
More seriously, I'd like to see voting made compulsory, and ever easier; and have "none of the above" &/ "don't know, don't care" as a valid option on the ballot

[Zhivago]

I've proposed similar on a previous version of this board (before Breshit was even on the horizon). IIRC I combined the administrative regions (with some redrawing) to provide 4 English regions of approximately the same population size / GDP - as with yourself, reviving the old Wessex / Mercia / Northumbria names + London; each with both a cultural/political "Capital" and a wealth generating one.
Each region with as much (or greater) devolved power as Scotland had (and giving Wales and NI the same amount)
IIRC, I was suggesting elections to the regional parliament under a system similar to the NZ elections; and then each of those parliaments sending representatives to a shrunk HoC in Westminster

With such a system I would eventually (after some number of years because too much change too rapidly would not be accepted by the general public) also scrap the royalty and have a rotating head of state from one of the devolved entities maybe 6 month or 1 year rotation. Similar to how the EU has a rotating presidency.

I am interested by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

It'll never happen though. The only way electoral reform can happen is either through a big party deciding to vote for Christmas (hah!) or widespread public demand. The former is impossible and the latter is close to impossible given the (deliberate) undereducation of the electorate.

Puja

Actually I think for major reform like this the model to use would be a temporary single issue party. Clearly the success of UKIP and the Brexit party shows that it is at least a possible manner. It would however require sufficient support and media backing. So perhaps instead of being called Federal Party or something, we would name it Save The Union. Or something. The logic would be to propagate the idea through a patriotic propaganda medium.

The reason why Remain propaganda failed was because it appealed to logos too much and not to enough to pathos.

[Puja]

I am interested by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

It'll never happen though. The only way electoral reform can happen is either through a big party deciding to vote for Christmas (hah!) or widespread public demand. The former is impossible and the latter is close to impossible given the (deliberate) undereducation of the electorate.

Puja

If it helps, I'd also name my potential political party "None of the above"
More seriously, I'd like to see voting made compulsory, and ever easier; and have "none of the above" &/ "don't know, don't care" as a valid option on the ballot

I think the desirable end result would be compulsory voting, combined with electronic voting through the internet, but it's a pipe dream at the moment. Estonia manage it, but they have a robust citizen database with identity cards and registration numbers, as well as a much smaller population to corrall (as well as there being far less foreign interest in their elections, reducing the desire to hack them).

Puja

[Zhivago]

Leaked memo from Tory HQ that shows that they're in panic mode about Scottish Independence.

Relevant to our current topic:

The memo offers three steps the UK government could take to mitigate the pressure: “New accommodation, new constitutional settlement, and cooperation rather than confrontation.” It describes the first step as a “velvet no” that rejects a referendum in the short term and buys time.

The government should instead focus on a “four nations, one country” policy by transferring further financial powers, differentiation on policies connected to the EU vote, such as immigration

.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... dependence

[Which Tyler]

That already looks woefully out of date

I've obviously issed 1-2 since then, here's today's

https://twitter.com/RussInCheshire
#TheWeekInTory returns, and I’m very sorry, but it’s a monster. The little scamps have achieved quite a lot in the - yep - FIVE DAYS - since the last one.
Let’s dive straight in with probably the most gobsmacking sentence you’ll read all year…
1. NHS staff were polled on whether, in recognition of their efforts to fight Covid 19, they would prefer to be given a badge or a snack box
2. It was reported 2 out of every 3 hospices will have to make redundancies. In a pandemic.
3. The govt published a poster: “We plan to cut all homeless people in half by 2025”, which is a bit severe even for Priti Patel
4. The govt insisted we all comply with Test and Trace rules, and then excluded restaurants in the Palace of Westminster from Test and Trace rules
5. In Sept Boris Johnson announced a £100bn “Operation Moonshot” to fix Covid “within months”
6. A month later it was leaked Moonshot was cancelled
7. The next day it was revealed the govt still pays over 200 private consultants up to £7000 per day each to work on Moonshot
8. So 2 days after it was cancelled, it was reinstated, but now Boris Johnson said it will “take time”
9. We’re still giving £100bn to private suppliers for a vaguely rapid thingy to do a hazily defined whatchamacallit that will happen too slowly to produce any useful results
10. In May Boris Johnson reassured a grateful nation that “nobody will go hungry as a result of Coronavirus”
11. He then denied food to the UK's 600,000 poorest children
12. So Marcus Rashford ran a campaign to get the kids fed
13. Then Boris Johnson congratulated Rashford on the MBE he got for his campaign to overturn the cruel policies of [checks notes] Boris Johnson
14. And then 3 days later, Boris Johnson refused to feed the kids again
15. And then, (because let's face it, allowing children to starve barely raises an eyebrow any more) the govt won a vote in parliament to prevent child refugees from being reunited with their families, because obviously that's helpful to ... anyone know who that helps? Anyone?
16. But the govt pressed ahead with helping British people to lose weight (by starving them), and it was reported the (obviously) private contract to provide emergency food-parcels is charging £44 for a box that costs just £19 at Aldi. And the govt one contains rotting food.
17. In Sept Boris Johnson said “a free press is vital in holding the government to account”
18. This week, govt scientists reported they are being banned from speaking to the press, due to “the difficult political landscape”, meaning silencing science is a purely political act
19. More media news, and it was revealed that following a long, noisy, mostly Lineker-focussed campaign to cut the wages of BBC staff, the Tories offered to increase the wage of the BBC Director General from £100k to £280k, but only if it could be Boris’s friend Charles Moore
20. In June the govt gave a contract for PPE worth £32m to Pestfix, a sweet warehouse with assets of £18,000. The govt paid 75% upfront, and the delivered materials turned out to be faulty
21. The govt has since awarded 5 additional PPE contracts to Pestfix, worth £313m
22. The govt is now being sued to find out why it’s covertly handing out almost £350m to a crisp warehouse for PPE it has proved it cannot supply, and Pestfix is using the £350m to pay lawyers to stop us finding out why it got £350m in the first place. Still no PPE.
23. And now, the latest update on Mark Francois...
Nope, that's all I've got. Moving on...
24. Boris Johnson announced the new lockdown rules were “simple enough for anybody to understand”
25. He immediately got them wrong, telling the press separated parents could not see their children, convenient for a man who famously only acknowledges 57% of his offspring
26. Anyway, Johnson then said the rules were obviously too complicated, so he would overhaul them. Again
27. He said he’d liaise with local regions, and provide “improved financial support”
28. He then forgot to liaise with local regions, and cut their financial support
29. Boris Johnson said “whatever happens, nobody gets less than 93% of their current income”
30. People get a max 67% of their current income
31. The govt said it would “stop at nothing” to support people in Tier 3 areas
32. The govt stopped at £7.85 per person in Manchester
33. By contrast, Robert Jenrick improperly arranged a £25m gift to his own constituency - £237 per head, 30x as much as Manchester
34. And Boris Johnson paid £100k of public money for “IT advice” from Jennifer Arcuri, who this week admitted they were actually having an affair
35. Anyway, the Mayor of Manchester didn’t ask for such largesse, or even offer to pole-dance for the Prime Minister; he just asked for Manchester to get the same amount of money per person that is being given to Lancashire.
36. Boris Johnson said he “completely understands” why Andy Burnham objects to the settlement
37. And then Boris Johnson stopped understanding, and said Andy Burnham was “playing politics” and therefore he would impose direct rule on the region’s democratically elected Mayor
38. And in further boost to the govt’s support for regions, Daniel Kawczynski, Tory trade envoy to Mongolia and successful brain donor, called for the Welsh Assembly to be scrapped
39. Kawczynski then called for improvements to his local hospital to be scrapped. In a pandemic
40. And then, after many eventful years calling for Britain to leave the EU, and objecting to a (non-existent) plan for an EU Army, Kawczynski, a technically sane man, tweeted that we should “begin the process of creating an alternative EU” that is “predicated on defence”
41. Brexiters insist we can strike great deals around the world, and immediately failed in negotiations with Manchester and Wales
42. Which brings us onto Brexit: and Boris Johnson’s oven-ready deal has skipped the middle-man and gone straight into the toilet
43. This week the PM appeared on TV in the guise of a traumatised Shredded Wheat, and told us all we should get ready for No Deal
44. It was reported Boris Johnson was “startled by the EU insistence” that he sticks to the agreements that he, personally, insisted the EU signed
45. So the PM said we should walk away and have an “Australian-type deal with the EU”
46. It was quickly explained to the PM that Australia doesn’t have a deal with the EU
47. So Boris Johnson, now a master of detail, amended it to Canada-style deal next time he was asked
48. But then it was revealed the Canada/EU deal includes an arbitration mechanism that Boris Johnson has already rejected
49. John Redwood, a Tory MP and Vulcan, insisted all we want from the EU is the same thing Canada gets, such as protection of our fishing industry
50. Canada doesn’t have a fisheries deal with the EU
51. After a dizzying evening chasing reality in circles, it became an Australian-type deal again
52. The business secretary was asked the difference between No Deal and Australian Deal and had to admit: nothing
53. Brexiter Andrew Bridgen said we wouldn’t be limited to trading on WTO rules, we could trade on “WTO plus”, a thing that doesn’t exist
54. The Chairman of the Royal Inst for International Affairs said “it now seems likely that Brexit will lead to the break up of the UK”
55. The head of the CBI and head of the Fed of Small Businesses said the UK is not ready for No Deal
56. Tesco chairman said the UK will have months of food shortages after No Deal
57. British Pharmaceutical Society said there would be shortages of medicines if we have No Deal
58. Even William Shatner – yes, you read that correctly – got involved, explaining that Brexit means smaller overseas businesses importing into the UK have to pay £1000 just to file the forms to register for VAT, and therefore would likely stop trading with us
59. Reassuringly, the govt said it was “determined to continue to seek a deal”
60. And then the govt told the EU not to bother coming to London for more talks
61. And then multiple Tory MPs, each provided with real human brain, tweeted identical suggestions to “sod the EU”
62. Michael Gove, a quasi-sentient almond who last year said “Let no one be in any doubt how difficult and damaging [No deal] would be”, now went on TV and insisted the EU had to “make constructive moves towards a deal”
63. He then said, inside the same 2 minutes at the dispatch box in parliament, that talks had “effectively ended”; and then that the EU had taken the “constructive move” he demanded; and then that as a result, talks could now “intensify”. Wait for it...
64. And then he refused to restart negotiations anyway, cos honestly, what do words even mean any more
65. He claimed in parliament the UK would “do better” without the law enforcement cooperation we get from the EU, which made even Theresa May gasp “utter rubbish”
66. And then Michael Gove said we shouldn’t worry about the 12% unemployment the IFS predicts would be caused by a No Deal Brexit, because we can create lots of new jobs building enough lorry parks to obliterate Kent
67. I’m sure we’ll be fine, because the govt proudly announced a trade deal with Côte d’Ivoire, to which we sell 0.13% as much as we sell to the EU
68. The world-beating Test and Trace service sent hundreds of people to be tested at a testing site in Kent that doesn’t even exist
69. And then the world-beating app that is designed to give accurate information the public can rely on sent a series of incorrect and contradictory risk-level alerts
70. But good news: profits at Serco are expected to jump 18%, which I’m sure is your top priority right now
71. And on the subject of profit, Boris Johnson is rumoured to want to resign in March because his salary is too low. Which means in the middle of a Brexit crisis and a global pandemic, the Tory party will spend months fighting over which Dementor becomes the next leader
72. It’ll be Priti Patel, obviously, because this week she announced she, personally, would tell judges what constitutes “inhuman or degrading treatment” (being an expert) and they should no longer use the globally accepted UN Declaration on Human Rights
73. And now, unexpectedly, an all-bishops finale! The Archbishop of York was denied the traditional peerage on his retirement. I don’t know if you noticed - it's hardly worth mentioning, really - but he’s the first black Archbishop we’ve ever had
74. The excuse given by the govt was that it “needs to limit the size of the house of Lords”, days after ennobling 36 peers including Boris Johnson’s brother, Ian Botham, and Claire Fox, an unrepentant apologist for IRA terrorism who just happened to support Brexit.
75. Five archbishops appealed to the govt not to breach international law, which seems like a reasonable thing to ask. It's the law. Don't break it.
76. Beta-version human and self-styled "Brexit-hardman" Steve Baker said “of course they entitled to these views”
77. And then Steve Baker went on to say if they have the views they’re “entitled to”, they should be thrown out of the house of lords; and the Church of England, which the Queen is head of, should be disestablished. A perfectly sane response to being asked to obey the law.


Quick note on a technicality - #52...
There really IS a difference between an Australian Deal and No Deal...

"Australian" is worth a whole 8 points more in scrabble

[Sandydragon]

With the ongoing arguments over how to implement covid restrictions between regional and national governments, this is surely an opportunity for a review of how government is implemented in the UK. An English Parliament might not be the answer, but regional assemblies could be effective instead, with a reduced function for the HOC.

I really think that adopting some form of federalism is the only way we can save the union. Could work quite nicely on a regional basis with maybe 3 or 4 English regions. Ideally would have a bit more balance between celtic nations and England. The federal aspect could be in the house of lords, while retaining the HoC. Stop all these silly appointments to the HoL, where it keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Maybe something like
Devolved parliaments: Scotland, NI, Wales, Northern England, Midlands, South East, South West. Could also revive some old names like Mercia, Northumbria etc.

HoC: stays the same

HoL: scrap appointment by PM, scrap last vestiges of hereditary and spiritual peers, make it elected with equal number of representatives from each region.

If you make the HoL elected, what's the point? With a federated approach, the role of the HoC reduces significantly. The HoL is either a reviewing body with appointed experts (note experts not political flunkies) or we just scrap it entirely. 2 elected houses for foreign, defence and macro economic policy seems excessive.

Unless, the HoL has representatives equally from all 7 regions (assuming 4 English ones) which can balance out the population imbalance that would otherwise occur in the HoC (as you state) but perhaps there is a better way to balance out the HoC and save some money.

[Zhivago]

With the ongoing arguments over how to implement covid restrictions between regional and national governments, this is surely an opportunity for a review of how government is implemented in the UK. An English Parliament might not be the answer, but regional assemblies could be effective instead, with a reduced function for the HOC.

I really think that adopting some form of federalism is the only way we can save the union. Could work quite nicely on a regional basis with maybe 3 or 4 English regions. Ideally would have a bit more balance between celtic nations and England. The federal aspect could be in the house of lords, while retaining the HoC. Stop all these silly appointments to the HoL, where it keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Maybe something like
Devolved parliaments: Scotland, NI, Wales, Northern England, Midlands, South East, South West. Could also revive some old names like Mercia, Northumbria etc.

HoC: stays the same

HoL: scrap appointment by PM, scrap last vestiges of hereditary and spiritual peers, make it elected with equal number of representatives from each region.

If you make the HoL elected, what's the point? With a federated approach, the role of the HoC reduces significantly. The HoL is either a reviewing body with appointed experts (note experts not political flunkies) or we just scrap it entirely. 2 elected houses for foreign, defence and macro economic policy seems excessive.

Unless, the HoL has representatives equally from all 7 regions (assuming 4 English ones) which can balance out the population imbalance that would otherwise occur in the HoC (as you state) but perhaps there is a better way to balance out the HoC and save some money.

Yes the latter is what I had in mind. The HoL would function as a balancing act to reflect that our country is an amalgam of disparate parts. It wouldn't need to necessarily be elected, it could still be appointed, but the balance should reflect the 7 regions equally. The current Londongrad centricity is like a black hole devouring our beloved union. Otherwise this sceptred isle will become a separated isle in short order!

While we're at it, we could also look at the BoE and see if that is working properly as intended. Obviously in the states the Federal Reserve has 12 regional federal reserve banks spread across the country. Perhaps there could be appointments made by each devolved entity to the BoE. Would need to be qualified individuals of course.

And indeed the role of the HoC would be reduced. Definitely needs further thought. I favour devolving as much as possible. Obviously matters such as foreign policy should be decided centrally. The question would be who decides such matters and how that would be implemented in the political system.

[Sandydragon]

I really think that adopting some form of federalism is the only way we can save the union. Could work quite nicely on a regional basis with maybe 3 or 4 English regions. Ideally would have a bit more balance between celtic nations and England. The federal aspect could be in the house of lords, while retaining the HoC. Stop all these silly appointments to the HoL, where it keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Maybe something like
Devolved parliaments: Scotland, NI, Wales, Northern England, Midlands, South East, South West. Could also revive some old names like Mercia, Northumbria etc.

HoC: stays the same

HoL: scrap appointment by PM, scrap last vestiges of hereditary and spiritual peers, make it elected with equal number of representatives from each region.

If you make the HoL elected, what's the point? With a federated approach, the role of the HoC reduces significantly. The HoL is either a reviewing body with appointed experts (note experts not political flunkies) or we just scrap it entirely. 2 elected houses for foreign, defence and macro economic policy seems excessive.

Unless, the HoL has representatives equally from all 7 regions (assuming 4 English ones) which can balance out the population imbalance that would otherwise occur in the HoC (as you state) but perhaps there is a better way to balance out the HoC and save some money.

Yes the latter is what I had in mind. The HoL would function as a balancing act to reflect that our country is an amalgam of disparate parts. It wouldn't need to necessarily be elected, it could still be appointed, but the balance should reflect the 7 regions equally. The current Londongrad centricity is like a black hole devouring our beloved union. Otherwise this sceptred isle will become a separated isle in short order!

While we're at it, we could also look at the BoE and see if that is working properly as intended. Obviously in the states the Federal Reserve has 12 regional federal reserve banks spread across the country. Perhaps there could be appointments made by each devolved entity to the BoE. Would need to be qualified individuals of course.

And indeed the role of the HoC would be reduced. Definitely needs further thought. I favour devolving as much as possible. Obviously matters such as foreign policy should be decided centrally. The question would be who decides such matters and how that would be implemented in the political system.

Devolved BoE is interesting. That would deserve some thought - local political control is meaningless without appropriate fiscal levers to pull.

As for political devolution, the Scottish situation must be the starting point. I'd keep the obvious candidates such as foreign and defence policy central; most of the rest are up for grabs, and I agree that the more devolution the better. There are certain policy elements that may be less confusing if managed centrally, i.e. H&S legislation.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Leaked memo from Tory HQ that shows that they're in panic mode about Scottish Independence.

Relevant to our current topic:

The memo offers three steps the UK government could take to mitigate the pressure: “New accommodation, new constitutional settlement, and cooperation rather than confrontation.” It describes the first step as a “velvet no” that rejects a referendum in the short term and buys time.

The government should instead focus on a “four nations, one country” policy by transferring further financial powers, differentiation on policies connected to the EU vote, such as immigration

.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... dependence

I can't shake the suspicion that, in extremis, Cummings (and hence Johnson) would seriously consider Scottish independence to lock in the Tories' majority in the rest of the UK.

[Digby]

Loads more kids are now taking free school meals, basically an extra 20% or so, and the funding wasn't in place to keep the previous levels getting fed. So nothing can go wrong there.

And Boris is the new Theresa May, everyone needs to work together, working together means agreeing with the PM

[Sandydragon]

Leaked memo from Tory HQ that shows that they're in panic mode about Scottish Independence.

Relevant to our current topic:

The memo offers three steps the UK government could take to mitigate the pressure: “New accommodation, new constitutional settlement, and cooperation rather than confrontation.” It describes the first step as a “velvet no” that rejects a referendum in the short term and buys time.

The government should instead focus on a “four nations, one country” policy by transferring further financial powers, differentiation on policies connected to the EU vote, such as immigration

.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... dependence

I can't shake the suspicion that, in extremis, Cummings (and hence Johnson) would seriously consider Scottish independence to lock in the Tories' majority in the rest of the UK.

It would once have been unthinkable for a Conservative PM to be responsible for the break up of the Union. However, Boris et al are content for NI to effectively be treated differently in order to leave the EU, potentially hastening reunification in Ireland. Many little Englanders who happen to be Conservative Party members probably see Scotland as a bunch of scroungers who just siphon money off England (ignoring that Britain only became a pre-eminent world power because of the total contribution of the UK) so the fall out on Boris would probably be less than it once was.

Its also probably a correct assumption that by removing Scotland from the picture, the chances of anyone else winning a majority in the HoC is pretty slim. It would literally take a Blair style landslide (and the follow on effect as that landslide is gradually whittled down):

English Seats only:

1983 - Conservative 362, Labour 148, Lib/SDP 5, 523 English seats, 262 needed for majority, Conservative majority of 100
1987 - Conservative 358, Labour 155, Lib/SDP 10, 523 English seats, 262 needed for majority, Conservative majority of 96
1992 - Conservative 319, Labour 195, Liberals 10, 524 English seats, 263 needed for majority, Conservative majority of 56
1997 - 328 Labour vs 165 Conservative and 34 Liberal, 529 English seats, 265 majority, Labour majority of 63
2001 - 323 Labour, 165 Conservative and 40 Liberal, 529 English seats, 265 majority, Labour majority of 58
2005 - Labour 286, Conservative 194, Liberal 47, 529 English seats, 265 for majority, Labour majority of 21
2010 - Conservative 297, Labour 191, Liberal 43. 533 English seats, 267 for majority, Conservative majority of 30
2015 - Conservative 318, Labour 206, Liberal 6. 533 English seats, 267 for majority, Conservative majority of 51
2017 - Conservative 296, Labour 227, Liberal 8 533 English seats, 267 for majority, Conservative majority of 29
2019 - Conservative 345, Labour 179 and Liberal 7. 533 English seats, 267 needed for majority, Conservative majority of 78

I've not counted Wales and this also tends to be predominately Labour, although not overwhelmingly so.

SO in this scenario, no coalition, and healthy majorities for the Conservatives from 2010 onwards.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Leaked memo from Tory HQ that shows that they're in panic mode about Scottish Independence.

Relevant to our current topic:
.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... dependence

I can't shake the suspicion that, in extremis, Cummings (and hence Johnson) would seriously consider Scottish independence to lock in the Tories' majority in the rest of the UK.

It would once have been unthinkable for a Conservative PM to be responsible for the break up of the Union. However, Boris et al are content for NI to effectively be treated differently in order to leave the EU, potentially hastening reunification in Ireland. Many little Englanders who happen to be Conservative Party members probably see Scotland as a bunch of scroungers who just siphon money off England (ignoring that Britain only became a pre-eminent world power because of the total contribution of the UK) so the fall out on Boris would probably be less than it once was.

Its also probably a correct assumption that by removing Scotland from the picture, the chances of anyone else winning a majority in the HoC is pretty slim. It would literally take a Blair style landslide (and the follow on effect as that landslide is gradually whittled down):

English Seats only:

1983 - Conservative 362, Labour 148, Lib/SDP 5, 523 English seats, 262 needed for majority, Conservative majority of 100
1987 - Conservative 358, Labour 155, Lib/SDP 10, 523 English seats, 262 needed for majority, Conservative majority of 96
1992 - Conservative 319, Labour 195, Liberals 10, 524 English seats, 263 needed for majority, Conservative majority of 56
1997 - 328 Labour vs 165 Conservative and 34 Liberal, 529 English seats, 265 majority, Labour majority of 63
2001 - 323 Labour, 165 Conservative and 40 Liberal, 529 English seats, 265 majority, Labour majority of 58
2005 - Labour 286, Conservative 194, Liberal 47, 529 English seats, 265 for majority, Labour majority of 21
2010 - Conservative 297, Labour 191, Liberal 43. 533 English seats, 267 for majority, Conservative majority of 30
2015 - Conservative 318, Labour 206, Liberal 6. 533 English seats, 267 for majority, Conservative majority of 51
2017 - Conservative 296, Labour 227, Liberal 8 533 English seats, 267 for majority, Conservative majority of 29
2019 - Conservative 345, Labour 179 and Liberal 7. 533 English seats, 267 needed for majority, Conservative majority of 78

I've not counted Wales and this also tends to be predominately Labour, although not overwhelmingly so.

SO in this scenario, no coalition, and healthy majorities for the Conservatives from 2010 onwards.

Depressing stuff. Hopefully still unthinkable for enough Tory MPs.

[Sandydragon]

Its not impossible for Labour to win, or at least for a coalition to be in power that doesn't include the Conservatives, but its an uphill battle.

On the other hand, history does show that after a while of one government, voters get bored and provided the opposition is seen as competent, they can give a governing party a real kicking in the polls.

[Sandydragon]

For anyone thinking of electoral alternatives in England, the popular vote is interesting:

2019 - Conservatives won 47.2% of the vote, Labour 34%, Liberal 12.4%, UKIP and Brexit Party combined 2.1%, Green 3%
2017 - Conservatives won 45.5% of the vote, Labour 41.9%, Liberal 7.8%, UKIP 2.1%, Green 1.9%
2015 - Conservatives won 40.9%, Labour 31.6%, Liberal 8.2%, UKIP 14.1%, Green 4.2%
2010 - Conservatives 39.5%, Labour 28.1%, Liberals 24.2%, UKIP 3.5%, BNP 2.1% Greens 1%
2005 - Labour 35.4%, Conservatives 35.7%, Liberals 22.9%, UKIP 2.6%
2001 - Labour 41.4%, Conservative 35.2%, Liberals 19.4%, UKIP 1.7%
1997 - Labour 43.5%, Conservative 33.7%, Liberal 18%, Referendum Party (remember them) 2.9%
1992 - Conservatives 45.5%, Labour 33.9%, Liberals 19.2%
1987 - Conservatives 46.2%, Labour 29.5%, Alliance 23.8%
1983 - Conservatives 46%, Labour 26.8%, Alliance 26.4%

SO at no time did any party in government get over 50% of the votes. Assuming that you need 1% of the vote to get MPs (just for arguments sake and to avoid bringing in lots of minor parties):

1983 - Mathematically a Labour and Alliance coalition, but in reality, the leadership of Foot probably would have prevented that, so Conservative minority government.
1987 - Again, a mathematical possibility of Alliance and Labour uniting, but Conservatives clearly the biggest party.
1992 - I think the likelihood of a Labour Liberal coalition is higher for this one as Kinnock had begun to reestablish some kind of move away from the Foot era.
1997 - Labour liberal coalition
2001 - Labour liberal coalition
2005 - I don't think the chance of a Conservative Liberal coalition is high for this year due ot the leadership, so another Labour - Liberal coalition
2010 - Most likely a Conservative UKIP coalition
2015 - Conservative UKIP coalition
2017 - Who knows? Mathematically a Labour Liberal coalition but would the liberals have worked with Corbyn? Maybe a Conservative minority government with Liberal support on key issues (I seem to remember that being discussed as an option at one point)
2019 - Potential for a rainbow coalition, but would smaller parties have worked with COrbyn? Most likely a Conservative and UKIP/BREXIT party coalition to just about scrape home.

[Son of Mathonwy]

For anyone thinking of electoral alternatives in England, the popular vote is interesting:

2019 - Conservatives won 47.2% of the vote, Labour 34%, Liberal 12.4%, UKIP and Brexit Party combined 2.1%, Green 3%
2017 - Conservatives won 45.5% of the vote, Labour 41.9%, Liberal 7.8%, UKIP 2.1%, Green 1.9%
2015 - Conservatives won 40.9%, Labour 31.6%, Liberal 8.2%, UKIP 14.1%, Green 4.2%
2010 - Conservatives 39.5%, Labour 28.1%, Liberals 24.2%, UKIP 3.5%, BNP 2.1% Greens 1%
2005 - Labour 35.4%, Conservatives 35.7%, Liberals 22.9%, UKIP 2.6%
2001 - Labour 41.4%, Conservative 35.2%, Liberals 19.4%, UKIP 1.7%
1997 - Labour 43.5%, Conservative 33.7%, Liberal 18%, Referendum Party (remember them) 2.9%
1992 - Conservatives 45.5%, Labour 33.9%, Liberals 19.2%
1987 - Conservatives 46.2%, Labour 29.5%, Alliance 23.8%
1983 - Conservatives 46%, Labour 26.8%, Alliance 26.4%

SO at no time did any party in government get over 50% of the votes. Assuming that you need 1% of the vote to get MPs (just for arguments sake and to avoid bringing in lots of minor parties):

1983 - Mathematically a Labour and Alliance coalition, but in reality, the leadership of Foot probably would have prevented that, so Conservative minority government.
1987 - Again, a mathematical possibility of Alliance and Labour uniting, but Conservatives clearly the biggest party.
1992 - I think the likelihood of a Labour Liberal coalition is higher for this one as Kinnock had begun to reestablish some kind of move away from the Foot era.
1997 - Labour liberal coalition
2001 - Labour liberal coalition
2005 - I don't think the chance of a Conservative Liberal coalition is high for this year due ot the leadership, so another Labour - Liberal coalition
2010 - Most likely a Conservative UKIP coalition
2015 - Conservative UKIP coalition
2017 - Who knows? Mathematically a Labour Liberal coalition but would the liberals have worked with Corbyn? Maybe a Conservative minority government with Liberal support on key issues (I seem to remember that being discussed as an option at one point)
2019 - Potential for a rainbow coalition, but would smaller parties have worked with COrbyn? Most likely a Conservative and UKIP/BREXIT party coalition to just about scrape home.

I'd take NZ's system anytime. Of course, people may well vote differently knowing that it's a PR system.

NB in your analysis, surely 2010 would be a continuation of the Lab-Lib coalition? And I imagine Lab-Lib-Green would have ruled since 2017. (Ah, these lovely hypotheticals!)

[Sandydragon]

For anyone thinking of electoral alternatives in England, the popular vote is interesting:

2019 - Conservatives won 47.2% of the vote, Labour 34%, Liberal 12.4%, UKIP and Brexit Party combined 2.1%, Green 3%
2017 - Conservatives won 45.5% of the vote, Labour 41.9%, Liberal 7.8%, UKIP 2.1%, Green 1.9%
2015 - Conservatives won 40.9%, Labour 31.6%, Liberal 8.2%, UKIP 14.1%, Green 4.2%
2010 - Conservatives 39.5%, Labour 28.1%, Liberals 24.2%, UKIP 3.5%, BNP 2.1% Greens 1%
2005 - Labour 35.4%, Conservatives 35.7%, Liberals 22.9%, UKIP 2.6%
2001 - Labour 41.4%, Conservative 35.2%, Liberals 19.4%, UKIP 1.7%
1997 - Labour 43.5%, Conservative 33.7%, Liberal 18%, Referendum Party (remember them) 2.9%
1992 - Conservatives 45.5%, Labour 33.9%, Liberals 19.2%
1987 - Conservatives 46.2%, Labour 29.5%, Alliance 23.8%
1983 - Conservatives 46%, Labour 26.8%, Alliance 26.4%

SO at no time did any party in government get over 50% of the votes. Assuming that you need 1% of the vote to get MPs (just for arguments sake and to avoid bringing in lots of minor parties):

1983 - Mathematically a Labour and Alliance coalition, but in reality, the leadership of Foot probably would have prevented that, so Conservative minority government.
1987 - Again, a mathematical possibility of Alliance and Labour uniting, but Conservatives clearly the biggest party.
1992 - I think the likelihood of a Labour Liberal coalition is higher for this one as Kinnock had begun to reestablish some kind of move away from the Foot era.
1997 - Labour liberal coalition
2001 - Labour liberal coalition
2005 - I don't think the chance of a Conservative Liberal coalition is high for this year due ot the leadership, so another Labour - Liberal coalition
2010 - Most likely a Conservative UKIP coalition
2015 - Conservative UKIP coalition
2017 - Who knows? Mathematically a Labour Liberal coalition but would the liberals have worked with Corbyn? Maybe a Conservative minority government with Liberal support on key issues (I seem to remember that being discussed as an option at one point)
2019 - Potential for a rainbow coalition, but would smaller parties have worked with COrbyn? Most likely a Conservative and UKIP/BREXIT party coalition to just about scrape home.

I'd take NZ's system anytime. Of course, people may well vote differently knowing that it's a PR system.

NB in your analysis, surely 2010 would be a continuation of the Lab-Lib coalition? And I imagine Lab-Lib-Green would have ruled since 2017. (Ah, these lovely hypotheticals!)

Yeah, good spot, 2010 wouldn't have been a Conservative UKIP coalition. Probably if there had been a coalition before between Labour and the Liberals then that would have continued, regardless of personal chemistry between Cameron and Clegg. Then again, maybe the Liberals would have supported the largest overall party and recognised that Labour was running out of steam.

Pure hypotheticals.