Off Topic Political Debate

New party "606 Watford supporters" more sense talked here in one thread than a year in the halls of government, good cross section of views and positive debate...

 

I agree Aberdeen - we come from all parts of the political spectrum but are able to put our points across and agree / disagree amiably

This is a very interesting debate for me - it is amazing how much knowledge so few fans of a small football club can bring to the table

 

Just seen this on ewitter, I think it belongs here!

please log in to view this image

 

thanks for depressing me Canary - I know you are a bird but I had hopes I was still human

 

Scottish devolution and English devolution are 2 separate issues - the one is dictated by a time limit the other not. We are looking for a solution here which will stand the test of time and the matter of 6 months here or there is not important - what is important is getting a result which is acceptable for all concerned. The Tory plan of erecting a kind of English parliament within Westminster is a populist move designed to appease inflamed English nationalism. I am not against an English Parliament (preferably with PR) but it has to be outside of the existing Westminster UK. government.

Can you imagine 2 days a week that English MPs meet to discuss and vote on English laws - what if the UK government is dominated by one party and the English group dominated by another - is this not a recipe for constant blocking and counter blocking ie. total inertia ? MPs are also elected to represent their constituencies in parliament - if Scottish MPs are not allowed to take part in any discussions etc. relating to English constituencies - then, by the same token, English MPs would not be allowed to take part in any discussions over individual Scottish or Welsh constituencies in Westminster. In other words the whole process of constituencies electing MPs to represent them would be undermined by this act. I cannot conceive of the idea of a parliament within a parliament, involving the same people and possible clashes of interest.

 

The only time limit for Scottish issues results from a last minute panic by the No camp - no thought or consultation was given to that at all. As the Scots get more devolution the English should be freed from Scottish interference in their domestic affairs. So you do not agree with moves that are "populist" - you prefer unpopular, unfair, Labour favoured moves do you? "inflamed English nationalism" - is that how you described Scottish nationalism. You are not being at all balanced on this issue Cologne. Rather like an erstwhile "friend" of ours you keep repeating the same old mantra and not recognising the arguments in favour. A long term solution will take months or perhaps years. NOW is the time to balance the English system in the light of the Scottish one.

I can imagine very well and very pleasantly two days a week of discussing purely English affairs in Parliament without Scottish and other MPs who have absolutely no interest in the constituencies being affected voting on Party lines to foist on England what the Labour Party cannot win in an election of English MPs. It is precisely due to the fact that Labour has no mandate in England that it should not use 44 non English MPs to force what the English have not voted for. There would be no blocking or counterblocking. English MPs would determine the policies for English constituencies n matters where the Scots, Welsh and Irish have their own Assemblies and Parliament to create thier policy. The whole UK Parliament would - as now - vote on UK matters. There is absolutely zero clash of interest.

Simple, easy to implement, fair, democratic and in line with increased devolution.

A long term reform including PR if that is desired could follow later.

 

Actually I'd balance it as "UK parliament" sitting 2 days a week and "English parliament" sitting 3 days a week with daily allowances only being paid 1X.There is absolutely no reason why with the lesser amount of business remaining in the "UK parliament" as issues become devolved for said parliament to sit every day. Not populist, no conflict of interest, just fair. The fact it negatively impacts on the left influence over English politics at least in the short term is just the result of democracy and who knows this may have swung the other way in 20 years though I doubt it.

 

I have already stated some of the reasons why I consider the idea of an unofficial English parliament working within the Westminster setup as unworkable Leo - and these are not based upon either dogma or upon the Labour party manual. There is also a danger that such an interim solution could become a permanent feature and could actually prevent the establishment of an independent English parliament based upon PR. I do not regurgitate Dogma according to any party lines Leo - any more than you or anyone else on here. I have simply said that whereas I have nothing against an English parliament, I consider it unworkable within Westminster and have given reasons for that. Just remember Leo that an English parliament has been possible for the last 16 years ie. since the Scottish parliament started in 1998 - it is neither the fault of Scottish or Welsh MPs (who you wish to marginalize) that this issue has not been decided yet.

 

I do apologise - you argue your cases very well for the most part. However on this I think you have just got it totally wrong. Nobody is marginalizing Scottish or Welsh MPs - do you consider English MPs marginalized because they can no longer vote on those exact same issues for Scotland from within the Westminster Parliament? It is as Aberdeen and I are pointing out - equality and fairness. It would not be an unofficial English Parliament but would be identical to the situation whereby the MP for Herts can no longer vote on an Aberdeen NHS issue. It would be set out by Parliamentary Rules as are many other Westminstrer matters. Easily workable - not an ounce of a problem - can you name a problem?

If it became permanent then so be it - but that would be because there was not a call for further change - you contradict yourself in this argument by suggesting something that is "unworkable " could become permanent. Not everyone wants PR - it is in fact stupdly unpopular. However I believe once we get an English Parliament the majority of the population who do not support the Tories will soon see that first past the post would favour the Tories and so we may at last get some sense and see a coalition of Labour, Liberal and perhaps Greens come to power and then vote inn PR as part of their manifesto. Coalition governements necessarily carry the support of a greater proportion of the population and also prevent the extremist elements of party dogma from being adopted. Good.

The fact that it has been possible for 16 years is irrelevant - the wake up call has only just come - in the form of the Scottish Referendum - perhaps we have more to thank them for than we realize.

 

I think that the Scottish referendum drew into very sharp relief the need for a new constitutional settlement which embodies the idea of real democracy ie. that power flows upwards from the people and not downwards from a centralized state. We saw an exercise in democracy in Scotland which politicized many people who otherwise would have been asleep to all forms of politics - we also saw how powerless Westminster appeared in the face of real democracy. You may not like Miliband but he was right when he said we need more of this energy and not less ie. we need to engage the people in deciding our constitutional future. The idea of a People's constitutional convention is not new, and is not a product of the Labour party - in fact Miliband appears to have stolen the idea from the Greens. The subject having been the focus of an open letter from Caroline Lucas to all 3 leaders just before the referendum. The range of discussion in this convention may be different between the 2 parties. For the Greens it includes Electoral reform, a fully elected upper house, a written constitution, a bill of rights, greater powers for local and regional government, a process allowing for the recall of elected politicians, and more leeway given for local referenda & citizens initiatives - together with a reappraisal of the political role of the monarchy. All things which Britain IMO desparately needs. I suspect however that Labours' range of discussion will be much narrower than this - also, their motives are probably different. My main concern is to avoid kneejerk or quickfix solutions which distract attention to the central debate ie. the future role of Westminster and its relationship to the people.

 

I think the Scottish Referendum was a one off. It was not an election. I also happen to think there was very little energy or indeed interest until the final weeks of the campaign. then it became clear that this was NOT an election but the determination of the future of Scotland for a generation and more to come. Hardly surprising with the stakes so high and so much attention given to it that finally peole became interested.

Power did not flow up from the people at all. An American led political campaign funded by lottery winners and fronted by a charismatic yet typically less than honest politician almost managed to hoodwink a population into voting themselves into a nasty future. The campaign took on all the hallmarks of typical union/socialist workers party activists haranguing the opposition and anyone daring to oppose them. People were so confused by opposing misrepresentation that to the last day many could have voted either way. I will lay a bet here and now that in the next Scottish Parliamentary elections - and indeed the General Election in Scotland next year the voter turnout will revert to type. Westminster did not face "real democracy" - it struggled because many Scots hate the English so any intervention from Westminster was likely to help the Yes campaign, especially with Salmond demonizing Westminster at every opportunity. It was the loser Alister Darling who was most incompetent - to such an extent that even the abysmal Gordon Brown had to be rolled out to rescue him after the last TV debate.

I actually do like Milliband - as far as politicians go. He is very lightweight but seems quite honest and his laughter over forgetting parts of his speech on Monday was quite engaging.

You do not seem to understand that I fully support a thorough discussion of reform of our political system after the next general election. I am very close to the Green position. However that is no substitute for a simple and effective embargo on non English MPs for English matters pending the conclusion of such an examination. That could take the lifetime of the next Parliament and there is no reason to delay the simple correct course for now. The parties will do it - or your people will do it for you by electing Farage.

 

Leo - we will only ever get a thorough disussion on reform by backing those parties which demand it. The Tory 'short term' solution contains no recognition of the fact that Westminster itself may be the long term problem. As far as they are concerned we will have English only voting in Westminster and that will be it - then back to business as usual. Similarly Labour's plan is lacking in short term solutions because none of their ideas for strengthening the regions can materialize unless they provide answers for the English question first. Thus far we are agreed. Whichever party is in power must address the question of an English Parliament during the next term (and, whatever Labour is saying about regionalism, they will also accept this preliminary step). However I am far from convinced that the 'English Parliament' can begin its life within another parliament - if it does then it will, very soon, resemble that parliament. A new democratic English Parliament can only be born outside of Westminster - otherwise you will end up with a Westminster mark 2,and all of the changes which you and I appear to want can effectively go to sleep for the next hundred years.

 

I agree that the Tories are only interested in the short term solution - they will not advocate change. They never will as England as presently constituted gives them an electoral advantage.

I like that - as it means that everyone else will have to get together to deny them. That is what I want. I do not want Labour to find a way through regionalisation to simply replace an in-built Tory advantage with an in-built Labour one. That way we replace one devil with another. For me the best future is under a form of PR as I have said before - PR forces consensus. I reject the ideologies of both old Labour and Conservaitves. Labour do not know how to run an economy and the Tories can keep from bankrupting us but only care about enriching the rich. A plague on both their houses.

If the Tories appear to have a long term advantage in England it will take a coalition determined to adopt PR to oust them - we nearly had that back in 2009. Once you get a sort of rainbow coalition together then true Parliamentary reform can be on the agenda.

 

Unfortunately Leo the Tory electoral advantage which you refer to is more likely to lead to a new debate on EU membership with a very uncertain outcome - who would be the bankrupting party then ? My real fear (apart from those I have already indicated) is that an English Parliament would probably turn out to be another version of centralized and remote central government - a second tier of Westminster. And, I ask - is it necessary when England already controls 85% of the UK Government ? If we have an English Parliament in addition to Westminster then what are the chances of establishing other extra regional assemblies or of strengthening local government ? Very much less I would think because there are only so many levels of government which the electorate will tolerate. One thing is absolutely certain - the next government is going to be spending most of its' time on constitutional questions - and if it also has to concurrently debate the European issue then I despair of its chances.

 

Europe will feature in the next Parliament whatever the outcome. I also expect the result to be in favour of staying in - after all the same arguments that make Scotland better in the UK apply to the UK in Europe. We would be insane to leave. The Tories will be split on it but all the other parties will seek to remain in the EU. Unless Farage gets a large number of MPs and allies with the Tory and Labour Euro-sceptics then we should remain in. If there is no move towards banning non English MPs in Westminster I expect that UKIP will poll in massive numbers - on immigration and on an English Parliament.

Regional assemblies are simply Labour's diversionary tactic - they will never have real power or authority - and nor should they - would you have Regional Assemblies but no English Parliament. I suspect you would but the vast majority would not.

England needs equal representation. Your 15% destroy English control - they need to go.

 

I don't think the outcome of a referendum would be uncertain. It scares the life out of me to be honest.

 

If you look at the various party programmes regarding English devolution Leo then there is no really clear picture as yet - it is too early for that. As things stand the only party which is in favour of an English Parliament are the Tories. Labour is playing for time - suggesting a Peoples constitutional convention and that these matters are too important to be decided only by Westminster - there I agree with them. However, they have not absolutely ruled out any outcome, as yet. Nick Clegg has come out and said that an English Parliament would ''Create new talking shops for the political classes'' ie. he is not interested and the Lib Dems appear to be just as orientated towards regionalism as Labour. The Greens already had a position on this before the referendum (Labour nicked theirs from the Greens). I have no interest in the UKIP position because they have no seats in parliament and are, therefore, no more worthy of comment than the Monster Raving Loony Party who also have no seats in Parliament. As you will have guessed, I have very mixed feelings on this. I am afraid of the consequences of an English Parliament (both inside or outside of Westminster) but know that it must come at some stage - I mean even Kosovo has a parliament - so why not England ? Like Miliband I believe we need time and discussion with all the parties concerned, both regional and national, because we are looking for a solution which will last, will have credibility, and will create a UK where every citizen feels that they can make a difference.

 

The thread seems to have headed in to focus on politics within the UK but there is a much bigger picture and a much bigger threat to our children and grandchildren namely the clash in cultures between Islamic based ideology (albeit in corrupt form) and western values. These two political ideals can never be reconciled and it looks like the world is heading for a full on conflict at global scale which must result in the destruction of a vast number of people probably within our lifetimes. Can anybody see a way of non violently meeting a conclusion to the IS/AQ problem? Our ideals of longer life, less illness, more material comforts are completely at odds with the IS ideal of power, martyrdom and cannot be brought together unless you can undo brainwashing. Should we allow multiculturalism within our western societies or should we be firm in our values and take the Dutch approach of compulsory acceptance and integration into/of our societies values as a condition of immigration?

 

A person who can, in cold blood, murder a defenceless victim cannot hide behind the cloak of any religion or political ideal. No where can you find a justification of this act in the Koran (not even in the infamous 'sword verses') it is an act commited in the name of religion - but is against all religion, and so religious voices must be heard condemning it. We must be able to simultaneously act against these atrocities, but also strengthen our relationship to the main body of Islam to separate them from the main body (like a cancer growth). We are sitting on a powder keg in Western Europe - The UK. Germany and France all have over a million Islamic citizens (each) and there are estimated to be about 3,000 from these countries fighting with IS. These are often people who were born in places like Bradford, London, Cologne or Paris. We have the so called Sharia police active close to us (in Wuppertal) - just as you have in the UK. I do not know what the answer is - I believe in diversity and in a multi cultural society and I am not sure how to actually measure integration. A country is the sum of its constituent parts and its culture should reflect that - or how would you describe the culture of eg. London ? In the end an immigrant is not obliged to become 'like' the English or the Germans - he is not even obliged to learn those languages (if he can earn a living without them) - but he is obliged to live by their laws and to conduct himself in a way which is not offensive to the majority, and a criminal is a criminal whatever his ethnic origins.

 

The problem is that these terrorists do hide behind the cloak of religion and the analogy to cancer is a very good one. By associating with religion they first appeal to good motives but then home in on a gradual and insidious brainwashing that transforms innocent well meaning individuals into enraged and focused terrorists. The problem with allowing sub cultures to exist within our western societies who cannot speak our language is that without proper communication one always gets misunderstanding however good the motives (cf. Watford and Sannino). Our societies need to protect our values and for that reason there is no justification for Sharia law or Sharia police in our countries. The UK is cowtowing to Sharia principles in banking also now, this is the thin end of the wedge. Faster growth rates within poorly educated Muslim communities will result in a disproportionate growth rate in these sectors ultimately leading to them becoming the numerical majority in society and conquering our systems/and values through stealth growth. How far opposed to IS and AQ are the "true islamists"? If they are opposed they really need to stand up to the plate and ensure that the movements are completely isolated.