British Politics Thread

Isn't he the last of the old gang left? Damn. At least we still have Wedge Antilles and Rodney.

That's right. Still waiting for another Star Wars reference — or even an SWEU one!

What would be the advantages of a written constitution? It seems to cause USA no end of troubles.

We've got one. Granted, it's not on a single document... and, is constantly updating... and, is divided into regional flavours...

But, we've got one.

edited 19th Sep '14 3:37:36 PM by Euodiachloris

The US Constitution is only a problem because of the degree to which it is enshrined and how hesitant people are to change it.

Enshrined in the literal sense for some, I think.

Green, by the way, what counties do you think I should move around for my regions? I realise that some names aren't perfectly accurately descriptive, but I think I've got things reasonably okayish.

It's not about people being hesitant to change the constitution. Otherwise Prohibition would still be enshrined into law, Vice Presidents wouldn't take over if the previous president dies, and senators would still not be directly elected. It's mostly that there are a ton of authoritarians who just do not wanna follow the law.

edited 20th Sep '14 3:42:48 AM by Sledgesaul

Mostly. Apart from the lack of Kent, I'd probably shift Oxfordshire (or chop it in two?^note  See the 1976 Boundary Changes between Berkshire and Oxfordshire) and Gloucestershire to Wessex.

Don't you mean libertarians? Authoritarians are usually quite big on following the law.

I think he means stuff like the PATRIOT Act, NSA spying, and various other constitutionally shady affairs.

BBC: Labour warns of 'two classes of MP' if England-only votes go ahead

I do not see a problem.

Depends on perspective. Labour will be crippled if English votes for English laws goes ahead. There is a very high probability that if Labour get a majority, they will need Scottish and Welsh M Ps to do so. Therefore, there is a strong possibility that if EV 4 EL is passed, then Labour will not have power over devolved responsibilities in England. This is catastrophic, because the devolved ones include the key vote winners of health and education. Labour could therefore not fulfil any of their manifesto commitments in the areas people care most about. What is worse is that the non devolved responsibilities are the lethal ones: the Treasury (Taxation + Spending Cuts) and Foreign Office (EU and whatever world crisis happens to pop up.) Not to mention the fact that Miliband will be PM. In other words, no matter who causes the crisis, he is the fall guy. You only have to look to the US: Republican controlled House obstructs everything yet Obama takes the blame. It is far to easy to foresee a situation where David Cameron (or his successor), as the effective English first minister, blames any crisis within the NHS on the Labour government on insufficient resources from the Treasury. After all, it nearly swung the referendum campaign: Salmond said that voting Yes was the only way to stop Tory orchestrated privatisation despite the fact that Health is a devolved responsibility so the only way that the Scottish NHS was going to be privatised was if Salmond himself ordered it. Labour don't want this to happen. Hence why they have started bleating and starting calling for delays. Labour, if they have a preferred option, want city states. Tories love EV 4 EL. Liberal Democrats, probably want PR but that is nothing new. (Liberal Democrat mindset: Proportional Representation fixes everything. No exceptions.)

I think that the idea that Labour cannot win in England is ridiculous, and not supported by the historical evidence - only in 2010 would the Tories have won a majority without Labour.

Surely rather than ask for time, which will only anger most people, Labour should concentrate on arguing for smaller regions - even just the nine regions. After all, only the North East is less populous than Wales, so the Conservatives can hardly argue that the regions are too small to work with.

Ridiculous based on historical evidence, but I think history will be a poor guide in this next election. Labour's last three victories were landslides, caused by a multitude of factors including effective leadership from Tony Blair when New Labour were fresh and new, poor opposition from the Tories and favourable economic conditions that allowed largesse. Before that, we had Conservative governments and then we go to the pre "Gang of Four" era and beyond where there was no credible third option.

This time around we have an a ropey Conservative party battling against an equally ropey Labour shadow administration, with a third party credible enough to be currently in government and a fourth party waiting in the wings (or more precisely, in Clacton.) Add in the general bad feeling towards politics in general and you get an almost unprecedented election. Last time was fun, because suddenly we got the Liberal Democrats and talk about a hung parliament. This time we don't even have that because the Libs have most certainly lost their lustre, coalition politics ended up being unrecognisable from regular politics and there isn't even a scandal or economic crisis to liven things up. (although there is still time on that last one.)

I agree. They can't ask for time: the SNP have them over a barrel in Scotland. They also cannot set the agenda: David Cameron has shown remarkable initiative in taking the reins by using the bully pulpit of Number Ten. Labour need to act fast and regional devolution is the way for them to go: specifically, they might want to start playing the anti-London card. It's a risk: London is a huge power base for them in the urban areas BUT those groups are just as disillusioned with London elitism. As long as London / Westminster is synonymous with Government, the City and vested interests then Labour has a chance to convince people that regional government is the way to go. But they need something that is concrete and they need it fast so as to take the initiative away from David Cameron. They have the opportunity in the form of their annual conference. The next three days are critical. If I was Ed Miliband, I would do something really daring. I would announce a public constitutional convention to take place straight after the Conservative annual conference. That would push the ball back into David Cameron's court. They need to capture the public's imagination on this, and not let it be taken over by a feeling of injustice that leads down the path of EV4EL as the simple solution.

edited 20th Sep '14 5:29:01 PM by singularityshot

Alternatively: burn devolution to the ground and start again. Replace the Scottish Parliament with regional Scottish assemblies, create the same in Wales and England. There's no constitutional rule that keeps the Scottish Parliament in existence; what Westminster giveth, Westminster may also taketh away. If you are of the view that some kind of political propriety requires more than simple primary legislation, then a manifesto pledge from a party that then won a majority of Scottish and Welsh votes would likely be enough. One thing that is quite notable in the recent referendum is that the Nats did not win any of the Island regions, suggesting that they are equally disenchanted with London and Edinburgh rule. More localism in the Islands, and letting more of those sweet tourism and fishing revenues stay local can only be good. I also worry that we might see a localized version of the London effect in Edinburgh/Glasgow in Scotland, which indy would have deepened. France might be a good model. We could even incorporate the various overseas territories into this; no more of us subsidizing their sun-drenched kleptocracies or pedophile rings.

The trouble with current devo is that it was developed as a typically piecemeal response to an isolated demand - and now that demand is generalized, we are seeing an incoherent, equally piecemeal response. This is the trouble with the British state: everything is short-term. You can't just make a problem go away, you have to fix it.

Ulster is a special case, as the current arrangement there is the result of an agreement between two nation-states and an assortment of terrorist scum militant groups on both sides.

edited 20th Sep '14 5:35:20 PM by Achaemenid

I like the way you are thinking but please not literally, the Scottish Parliament building was expensive enough to build so I really want to get a least a few decades of use out of it before we burn it down. Burning down the Palace of Westminster on the other hand I am all for: rumour has it that it's going to have to be abandoned anyway to allow essential refurbishments to take place: much like our constitution it to has been subjected to numerous short term fixes that are now causing the whole thing to come crashing down around everyone's ears.

My own view is that we need to separate out national government from regional representation. There is no reason why our local MPs cannot take regional roles: some do. (Very likely example, Boris being a MP and Mayor of London). The problem stems from the fact that for many politicians being a MP is a stepping stone to greater things. It should be the pinnacle of achievement for someone who cares deeply about their local area. That's why I want to see an Additional Member voting system, with the caveat that you cannot be in the Cabinet or the Shadow Cabinet unless you were elected as an Additional Member.

edited 21st Sep '14 7:43:31 AM by singularityshot

@ Silas: In terms of Regional Parliaments, I'd base the regions roughly on this map◊, although I'd be tempted to give Cornwall its own Assembly and the Isle of Wight extra powers^note  It's an Island and fairly insular, so hence more responsibilities should probably be transferred.

From The BBC

• Viewpoint: What now for Britishness?

And on that subject, guess who once argued for a Federal England:

Labour want the public sector to monitor the class background of their employees.

I approve.

Remember what I said about the whole 'we didn't want to push this too hard because it might have been seen as racist' explanation for the Rotherham scandal being a flimsy excuse to cover up actual collusion between the authorities and the paedophile gangs? Yeah.

May there be no difference between the two?

Well, when people put forward that "It's not our fault, Political Correctness Gone Mad stops us from doing our jobs", and then behind doors mock the young girls as 'tarts', you have to wonder...

And by wonder I mean "it's a pretty damn sure thing". At the very least, they were criminally neglectful.

So it seems UKIP have come to the Fresher's Fair here and are handing out leaflets claiming we'e being brainwashed by our lecturers' refusal to use "right-leaning" philosphy.