Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:29 pm
That already looks woefully out of date
Just to focus on one item in this list ...Which Tyler wrote: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
Shame the police investigation was discontinued.Digby wrote: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
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 upSandydragon wrote:Shame the police investigation was discontinued.Digby wrote: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
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.Sandydragon wrote: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'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).Zhivago wrote: 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.
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.Which Tyler wrote: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.Zhivago wrote: 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.
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
I am interested by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.Zhivago wrote: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.Which Tyler wrote: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.Zhivago wrote: 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.
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
If it helps, I'd also name my potential political party "None of the above"Puja wrote: 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.Puja wrote:I am interested by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.Zhivago wrote: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.Which Tyler wrote: 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
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
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).Which Tyler wrote:If it helps, I'd also name my potential political party "None of the above"Puja wrote: 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
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
.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
I've obviously issed 1-2 since then, here's today'sDigby wrote:That already looks woefully out of date
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.Zhivago wrote: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.Sandydragon wrote: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.
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.
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!Sandydragon wrote: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.Zhivago wrote: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.Sandydragon wrote: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.
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.
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.
Devolved BoE is interesting. That would deserve some thought - local political control is meaningless without appropriate fiscal levers to pull.Zhivago wrote: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!Sandydragon wrote: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.Zhivago wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.Zhivago wrote: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
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.Son of Mathonwy wrote: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.Zhivago wrote: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
Depressing stuff. Hopefully still unthinkable for enough Tory MPs.Sandydragon wrote: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.Son of Mathonwy wrote: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.Zhivago wrote: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
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.
I'd take NZ's system anytime. Of course, people may well vote differently knowing that it's a PR system.Sandydragon wrote: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.
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.Son of Mathonwy wrote:I'd take NZ's system anytime. Of course, people may well vote differently knowing that it's a PR system.Sandydragon wrote: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.
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!)