The Scots have voted NO, and the Prime Minister now has the justification to not just make good on the pledge to massively ramp up devolution north of the border, but to do the same for England in ways that could dramatically change the political landscape. So what does he do?
Downing Street has made it clear that David Cameron’s Scottish devolution pledge does not depend on giving more powers to English MPs at the same time. Mr Cameron vowed to give tax-raising powers to the Scottish Parliament “in tandem” with moves to restrict Scottish MPs from voting on English matters. But No 10 sources insist that “one is not conditional upon the other”.
And thus the sheer stupidity of the man is revealed. This could have been bundled up together as a quid pro quo to present the Labour party as a ‘hospital pass‘: back Scottish and English devolution right now and in this form, and we will accept no faffing about to delay it until after the next election. Support two tier MPs in Westminster as we hand over power to the Scots, or be seen as being The Anti-English Party.
But no, the Stupid Party never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The NO vote handed Downing Street a gun to hold to the other side’s head and they just tossed it away.
Agreed; next question?
FD
Don’t insult complete idiots. At best he’s a spineless effwit.
I often see the same type of waffling avoidance of advantageous tactics by the Republicans. This has generally been put down to stupidity or some kind of self interest, but given the ubiquitous surveillance state I’m surprised the notion that the oppo party has access to information that blackmailers could only dream of.
Just remember, one of the first things the Clinton administration – Hillary herself in fact – did was to “accidentally” order up the FBI files of the Republicans in Congress.
Not necessarily. The problem has no trivial solution and everyone in government knows this. The notion of the English prime minister being a different person to the UK prime minister is a ridiculous but inevitable consequence of giving England the same degree of autonomy as the regions.
Furthermore, modern western politics in general and the strategy of LibLabCon in particular can be characterised as “Rob Peter to buy Paul’s vote.” As England consists mostly of Peters and the regions mostly of Pauls, all three parties are inevitably opposed to home rule for England and the consequent end of “robbing Peter” and can therefore reasonably be described as “anti-English”.
I bow to no man in my contempt for DC, but I don’t think he’s a complete idiot. The facts that he is the leader of the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom leads some people to believe that he is motivated by his perception of the interests of the Conservative Party and/or the United Kingdom. Which is a schoolboy error, for he is motivated solely by the interests of DC. Some people wonder why he made such a shockingly bad deal with the LibDems, eg offering a cast iron pledge of an AV referendum in return for a balsawood promise of boundary reform. He wanted to be Prime Minister, the deal got him there. if he hadn’t made a deal and some bodge up had been agreed between Gordon and the LibDems, Nats and all that swaddling to go to AV without a referendum, he would have remained Leader of the Opposition – for about a week, before the Tories chucked him out for failing to win the 2010 election. And that would have been the end of DC.
So this time – just as with the LibDem coalition deal, he has attempted to bounce people into buying into one of his short term tactical wheezes to keep DC afloat. So now the time has come to work out the details, it’s all a bit difficult. And when push comes to shove, whatever keeps DC in the saddle for a bit longer will do. If unleashing Scottish fury by making some kind of real English reform a real quid pro quo for more Scottish powers is good for DC, he’ll do it. If giving in to the Scots and Labour and offering a worthless trinket to the English works better for DC, he’ll do that instead. It’s just the same as the EU referendum. It was intended as a pure cosmetic sop to try to spike UKIP’s guns. But if he gets in again in 2015 and decides he needs a real referendum with a real chance of leaving – to save DC’s bacon – then that’s what we’ll get.
Perry is too impatient. The right policy will become apparent, when DC has decided what’s in his best interests. Don’t confuse things by introducing irrelevant trivia like Conservative party interests, English interests, national interests, whatever.
The mantra of all British political parties is ‘We will fuck you’ and you’d better be grateful.
Lee Moore nails it. As I said in the context of Ukraine:
It is blatantly obvious in whose interests Obama, Merkel, Hollande, etc. are acting over this Ukraine crisis: their own. And I don’t mean their citizens, or their country, I mean their own personal interests. Any support they may receive from their citizens or corporations is purely coincidental
Lee Moore shows a fine grasp of politics.
“It is blatantly obvious in whose interests Obama, Merkel, Hollande, etc. are acting over this Ukraine crisis: their own. And I don’t mean their citizens, or their country, I mean their own personal interests.”
It’s a great shame how little it is appreciated, this principle applies to every avenue of affairs. It’s certainly the key argument against most of the popular conspiracy theories. Organisations don’t tend to conspire against the public good, in quite the way it is often believed, because organisations are made up of people who mostly act in their own interests, not the organisations’. For instance, the CEO of a bank is primarily interested in the prospects of this particular bank CEO, not the bank he runs, not bank CEOs in general, nor the banking industry at large.
Cameron is the Conservative Party’s Harold Wilson.
From the quote:
Even if Westminster does this *it is not* devolution. The term ‘home rule’ is being thrown about within the context of English votes on English laws but it cannot be home rule if it is still rule via the British parliament.
It would be nice politicians were prepared to be honest about the problem. They won’t allow England to exist as a unit because of the fear that it would seek independence from the other nations.
So convinced are you that Cameron is an idiot, you cannot or will not see it when he’s played an absolute blinder. Pure prejudice. It’s the UKIP(ish) element of the right who’ve simply lost the plot who’re stupid, I’m afraid. Labour have been screwed, and the SNP wails of betrayal are unravelling. The fact you want to cycnically play politics with the constitution is telling.
This is the UKIP (I presume most of the wankers on this thread are UKIP scum) little englander mentality coming out. The correct response is to ridicule, then ignore.
The Liberal Democrats would never have backed the proposal on English votes for English measures. And if Mr Cameron had tried to insist on no more powers for Scotland without powers for England – the BBC (and “independent” television and radio) would have crucified him.
However, I AGREE with Perry – Mr Cameron has been (at best) very unwise indeed.
But I think the mistake was made directly after the last General Election – getting into bed with the Lib Dems (as he always wanted to do) in the first place.
Accounts will be settled with Mr Cameron after the next General Election – when the “men in grey suites” visit Mr Cameron.
As for the government of “Red Ed” (the Hampstead leftist escaped from a Peter Simple column) – it will indeed do great harm (but bankruptcy was very likely anyway).
Mr Miliband is already something of a joke figure – he is no Stalin.
The collapse of the Keynesian Social Democratic (and Fabian) projects in Britain will occur under Mr Miliband. And he will not set up any Death Camps – he will just be shocked and confused that his edicts do not have positive effects.
That will not help me – but you Perry (however irritated you now are) will get to have a good laugh.
“he’s played an absolute blinder.”
In what way? The “West Lothian” question’s been unanswered since the 70s. It was blindingly obvious it couldn’t continue to remain unanswered, since Labour’s devolution, unless Scotland solved it by leaving the Union. They voted to remain so now it’s come to the fore.
He’ll have “played a blinder” if he proves to have got his ducks in a row to take advantage of the referendum aftermath. Can he get English vote for English matters legislation through against Labour opposition? Has he cut deals with the other parties for support?
Jackart’s always going about ‘Little Englander conservatives’ but he’s your classic little UK-er, the last Conservative believer left in the country, standing there in his Union Jack waistcoat still defending David Cameron when everyone else has given up.
Jackart, explain how he had played a blinder, when as things stand, Scotland gets more devolved powers, because that is where the pressure is coming from, and yet will likely still gets to vote on English affairs because that suits the Labour party’s interests just fine. Entwining the two issues is not just logical, it could be the pressure to force Labour into agreeing to something sooner rather than later, but he wilfully does not play the card. This is a blinder how? It seems like astoundingly inept politics to me.
…or if you are just here to call us wankers, then fuck off.
The words “clear thinking” and “Cameron” cannot be used in concert, it is not the grey suited men he should look out for…it is the ones in the white coats. Under his misrule we have an insane energy policy, the loss of all the long fought for freedoms that we took for granted, a lack of any form of credible education system and so it goes. The most feared words in the English, or any other language, are “I’m from the government and I am here to help you”.
Jackart behaves like Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. He just can’t get over the fact that people look at Cameron and the Current Tories and see a busted flush of principle free Pro-EU professional politician wankers. Classic projection of self loathing I’m afraid…
Perry de Havilland (London) said:
The pre-referendum agreement between the Scottish admin and the UK admin agreed that they would get on with resolving things. If the hospital pass were to be set up it would result in the media painting Cameron and the Conservatives as anti-Scotland rather than Labour as anti-England. Not least because Scottish nationalism is something to be encouraged but for some reason English nationalism is not.
If the above happens to be true Cameron has hardly played a blinder but, he is no idiot either. At least not entirely.
No. Cameron is the conservative, he wants to conserve everything as it is: that the Labour maintains the moral and power vote and having the power to change everything :))))
In short the Tories are already a leftist party, if you have any doubts head to The Telegraph, they have now pedestrian articles about v*ginas, b*tt size, lesbianism etc.. sometimes i think i am reading Cosmopolitan…or the Guardian.
If the hospital pass were to be set up it would result in the media painting Cameron and the Conservatives as anti-Scotland rather than Labour as anti-England.
If Cameron were intelligent (OK, you can all stop laughing now), he’s simply treat it as an article of faith that the media were being racist Little Scotlanders.
Jackart is such a turd he defends bankers and Cast iron Dave on every occasion he is I tribal nut.
If the election were years away, not next May, I might agree with Perry. As it is, Cameron may see great advantage in allowing Labour and LibDems to prevent him from linking sauce for the Scottish goose to sauce for the English gander. That means he can campaign on it -and Labour and LibDems would have to campaign against it. Even where I am (Scotland), polls suggest 71% of people support English voters having the same rights as they do. In England, I don’t see opposing it as a vote winner – so much so that the (in my opinion, spurious) problem of the UK prime minister not always being the same as the English First Minister will not be a problem between next May and the election after at least.
I also think that in seats where the electorate don’t want to vote Tory, UKIP could do well on this issue.
With Labour’s last pre-election conference happening now, and the LibDem’s in Glasgow in two weeks, Cameron may not be an idiot in letting them nail their colours to the mast of “forcing” him to make English devo an election issue before they quite understand where this puts them.
He may of course lose votes to UKIP through having to appear to be forced. I’m guessing many on this site will manage to contain their sorrow if that happens.
Hmmm, interesting.
For Cameron to get English votes for English matters through the house he’d need a majority. He’d rather like those 6 SNP votes, I imagine… Not a position’d do the SNP any harm, vis a vis Labour in Scotland, either.
Well it would be ironic of the SNP ended up sorting that out, would it not?
The SNP have no motive to help Cameron get English devo though Westminster. Their current propaganda line is that Yes voters were tricked by a false promise of more powers; the last thing they want is swift implementation of Scottish devo proving them wrong. Their propaganda during the campaign was that “Voting Yes guarantees there will never again be a Tory government in Scotland”, so they want next May to see a Tory government with a huge majority based on English MPs. Only high-mindedness towards English voters and a willingness to let events prove them wrong would see the SNP helping to resolve a devo quarrel in Westminster – need I say more?
Ironic, Perry, but the enemy of your enemy can be your ally. The SNP would much rather be dealing with a Tory government in Westminster than a Labour one.
No person has been held in contempt by the British people BEFORE they become Prime Minister – so Mr “Ed” Miliband will make a bit of history (as he is already a joke figure).
“Red Ed” will also be the person who finally discredits “Social Justice” (and all that) – even in Scotland.
For those people who can get through the next five years (and I am sure that Perry will get through the next five years) the future looks bright.
Paul, could you please explain to this outsider the bright-future thing, and how it is connected to Mr. Miliband?
I have explained it twice Alisa – but I will have another go (as I have failed to be clear).
Mr Miliband will win the election in May (the constituency borders are rigged in favour of Labour – and the left seats of Scotland will still be in the pot now). However, Mr Miliband is no Joe Stalin – he is a joke figure.
He will be the first Labour Prime Minister to be a joke even BEFORE he becomes Prime Minister.
Mr Miliband (in the years of bankruptcy and farce that are to come) will utterly discredit the whole “Social Justice” doctrine – by the end of his term of office it will be regarded as a sick farce (even in Scotland).
Only a Labour Prime Minister (and only a complete prat – such as Miliband) could really destroy (discredit) the Social Justice doctrine.
I do NOT want it to be this way (I would have preferred reform to bankruptcy) – after all I will not survive.
However, for those people who do survive (the great majority of people) the coming bankruptcy and farce – there will indeed be a bright future (after Mr Miliband leaves office).
As for Mr Cameron….
He will be gone as soon as the election is lost.
The “men in grey suites” will visit him – to remind him to resign as leader of the Conservative Party.
There will be a fundamental change on the right of British politics – with the coming together of Conservative Party members and UKIP party members.
And such a new situation will have no room, in politics, for Mr Cameron (or people like him).
So roll on 2020!
That is the start of the bright new future.
Sorry Paul, I only now saw that you already explained it – thanks anyway.
Yes the key thing is that Mr Miliband is an idiot – but he is not a vicious idiot. Indeed (in his silly Hampstead leftist way) he is a well meaning idiot.
He will not set up death camps or anything like that – he will just be an utter prat (as Prime Minister) for a few years (discrediting the left in the process).
Mr. Miliband sounds like your version of Joe Biden!
Laird, somehow I doubt the well-meaning part of Biden’s obvious idiocy…
In Britain most taxes are uniform – in the United States some Progressive places have much higher taxes than other places (for example an average family in Bridgeport Conn will pay vastly more, all taxes put together, than a family in a similar sized city in South Dakota or Wyoming). This means one does not have to be intelligent to see that statism does not work.
The socialism of Hampstead intellectuals has no practical effect on Hampstead (we have both been there Alisa – it is a nice place, even if did have a mental block on where the house I was trying to find was) – but big government policies have a practical effect (a very visible effect) on cities in the United States. Joe Biden’s family home is a less than a hour’s drive from Philadelphia – he can see (he knows) what big government polices have done to that city (and to so many other places in the United States).
Short version.
No – Joe Biden is not well meaning.
Of course “Red Ed” formally represents an northern city constituency in Parliament (I believe he even visits the place – from time to time), but he can blame all its problems on lack of government spending (or whatever) from national government – as local government has little power in Britain.
Of course Labour (and the BBC and so on) does want “regional devolution” and “super cities” in Britain – which would turn out badly.
Cameron is vastly more popular than his party. He’s been dealt a shitty hand: A party which contains a significant UKIP fifth column, utterly obsessed by Europe, and to which about a third of the country is resolutely hostile. The right, long united, catastrophically disintegrated over Europe, long before he took charge, leaving Labour the natural party of government, yes, even under Miliband. Cameron didn’t do this. The Tory party still fighting the battles of the 80s and 90s did it. They (we) look ridiculous.
This constant refrain “Cameron’s an idiot/spineless/useless” because he can’t or won’t do whatever the UKIP-inclined fuckwit thinks he should is fucking tiresome and boring, and most often comes from someone who is absolutely part of the problem.
As far as the WLQ goes, Cameron has detonated a mine under Labour and done so quite brilliantly. They now have to go into the election explaining how they are going to force their agenda on England using their Scottish MPs. Labour’s counter proposal – regional government is as popular as a cup of cold sick. English votes for English Laws, while not an election winner is easy to explain and logical, and removes at a stroke, Labour’s advantage. It may weaken the union, it may not. We shall see. I suspect the SNP could help Cameron in order to further stiff Labour. The parties have worked together in the Scottish parliament.
Whatever he is, Cameron is no idiot, and I think the Coalition is doing a fine job. The deficit is falling, employment is rising, the assault on civil liberties has slowed, and the Scottish referendum has been won. Despite this, Tory party is going mad. And the sooner the idiot, EU-obssessed right fucks off to UKIP the better, so the Tory party can rebuild from the centre.
If you’re already in UKIP, then please enjoy my utter contempt.
I agree. As folks like you are essentially Blairites who want to make the Tories largely indistinguishable from Blair’s version of the Labour party, I agree that either folks like you need to get punted and someone rational like David Davis gets put in charge, or the actual conservatives need to write off the Tory party, flush it and head off to UKIP.
No, I want a centre right party, socially liberal, low tax, fiscally conservative (and if you think that describes Blair’s rampage through the nation’s finances, you’re even more insane than I originally thought) and ecumenical when necessary.
The idea that Cameron is identical to Blair (who incidentally described himself as the Heir to Thatcher…) is just so stupid, the person who wrote it must be thick enough to be persuaded by UKIP’s “libertarianism”.
What more do you want from Cameron’s government?
>I want a centre right party, socially liberal, low tax, fiscally conservative
In what Universe is Cameron’s government centre-right, low tax and fiscally conservative?
>What more do you want from Cameron’s government?
Er… Low taxes and fiscal conservatism for a start. Having an EU referendum for another. Not letting convicted murderers walk the streets… do you want me to go on?
Was my last commend deleted?
You want tax cuts and a balanced budget? I want a pony that shits gumdrops and farts rainbows too. You cannot have a tax-cut until the budget deficit is closed. And cutting spending much faster than about 2% real a year often has negative knock on effects. Cameron and Osborne seem to be cutting as fast as they can, but no faster than they need to. The deficit is shrinking, taxes have been cut, especially on the low paid but they are not punk-keynsians (as you seem to be – unfunded tax cuts are a means to boost demand)
I ask again, as I look at your caricature of a Government which fails to represent the facts under any form of scrutiny, WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT? Your prejudice against Cameron, who is doing a fine job, is irrational, and rather stupid. You’ll fit right in over at UKIP.
Jackass (sic.),
Try not hurling abuse, try arguing by citing facts, making comparisons and points, and you might get somewhere.
Jackart – I fundamentally disagree that the present government is “cutting as much as they can”.
I keep getting invites to “Social Justice” conferences where government ministers boast about how much money they are spending.
Then (apart from this) there is the orgy of subsidies (sorry “loans”) for housing estate developers and so on.
There may be politicians in the world who really are trying to control government spending (Governor Brownback of Kansas, who the media spend their time and resources smearing, springs to mind), but not national politicians round here.
“cutting spending much faster than 2% real a year has negative knock effects”
In what universe?
Not in this one.
Warren Harding cut American government spending IN HALF (50% cut in two years) – in the teeth of the 1920 bust, and the economy actually did well (unlike Herbert Hoover who INCREASED government spending in response to the 1929 bust – look how that panned out).
People who come up with Economist magazine “economics” are being misled (by the wretched academics).
And, by the way……..
Government spending “real” is not 2% smaller this year (2014) than it was last year (2013).
Local council spending may be – partly due to “fat bald councillors who are obsessed with money” (I suspect the Local Government Officer who said that, may just have possibly been referring to me), but not the national government.
Of course I am going to vote Conservative at the next election – the local Member of Parliament is a personal friend of mine for a start (and I respect his politics). And how could I betray Conservative Association members (such as VG) whom I have known my whole life?
But I am not going to pretend to people that this is some sort of hard core free market government – they would laugh in my face if I tried that.
When there are no more (government backed) conferences on “Social Justice”, “Stakeholders”, “Social Investment” and… and when there are no more Quangos (with the personal friends of Jim Hark.. just happening to be working for them) then I accept we will be making a real effort – not till then.
We are better than Labour and the Lib Dems – but that is a very low standard.
In the words of an old style School Report.
“Must Do Better”.
No but your next one will be.
Indeed, it is delusional.
It doesn’t take long before tax cuts pay for themselves.
And more often positive ones.
I thought your view was going to be that they were doing what they can to ensure they had a chance of being re-elected. While that would be, in my view, a mistake, is at least understandable. But you seriously believe they can’t cut any more? Unbelievable.
Very gradually, meanwhile debt climbs to enormous levels.
Not much in the way of tax cuts, and thresholds have been used to screw us.
I’m not any sort of Keynsian, which seems to be your whole limited way of looking at the economy.
With that attitude it’s no wonder that the Conservative Party is losing members and votes.
Yeah I think this Jackart bloke is in the bunker and can hear the artillery getting closer every day, and he don’t like it much.
“You’ll fit right over at UKIP”.
Why do establishment types think that this sort of language helps their case?
There are about 66 thousand Conservative party members left (not over 100 thousand as the leadership claim) – if you keep telling us that we are NOT wanted and that we should go over to UKIP……. well that is exactly what more and more people will do.
As for cutting government spending – really cutting it, not pretending to cut it.
Come to me (or to many of those other despised ordinary Conservative Party members) and we will list cuts for you – we can do it (and would not charge you).
We are the people who get you elected – we knock on the doors, and it is our money you spend at national H.Q.
For pity’s sake LISTEN TO US – we are not dogs to be ordered about as you see fit.
Your pandering to the Guardian letters page (with talk of “Social Justice” and “Social Investment” and “Social…. ” whatever) will avail you nothing – those people would never vote Conservative anyway.
Ordinary people (with “reactionary” social and economic opinions) might vote Conservative – but we can also sit at home or (as you helpfully remind everyone) vote UKIP.
If you want the votes of ordinary people – then GOOD we will help you win these votes.
But if you do NOT want the votes of ordinary people – then just bleeping well RESIGN and make way for people who do want the votes of the ordinary people of the United Kingdom.
Indeed. That is why at the UKIP conference they were handing out ‘fruit cakes’ to remind people of the contempt they are held in by the Tories 😀
Sounds like this side of the Pond. That’s exactly what we did in 2012, after the RNC decided that they’d rather win a primary than risk a conservative winning an election.
How well that actually worked, I leave as an exercise for the reader. I suspect that Paul understands it as well as anybody can from a distance.
long-lost cousin.
I do understand it – and the GOP ended up with a candidate who may be the only person on the planet to know less about computers than me (even I know you do not use an untested computer system on election day). And who (thanks to “Romneycare”) was the last person who could take on Obama about Obamacare.
Taking a name (at random) out of the telephone book would have been better than going for the establishment candidate.
Perry do not forget “closet racists”.
There is not an ordinary Conservative in the country who has not been (viciously) called a “racist” by the left (I have been reported to the Thought Police myself).
So in calling UKIP racists Mr Cameron was scoring a massive own goal – he was reminding every Conservative in the country how unjustly we have been treated by the “liberal” elite.
In the meantime UKIP is trying to beat Labor in its own backyard… We are all screwed, that much is clear.
So they think that a 20% sales tax is too LOW? For “luxury products”.
The peril of populist politics – going for the envy vote.
Still it is one policy – there are good policies also.
As for the election – we do not have Proportional Representation in Britain, having two parties going for (broadly speaking – most of the time) the same voters, is suicidal for both.
Mr Cameron (and his supporters within the Conservative Party – a minority, but a powerful minority, of the party) refuse to even try to make an alliance with UKIP.
Thus we go into the next election with our throat (and their throat) already cut.
“Be loyal or we will lose the election” is the line.
It is actually being “loyal” (to the suicidal leadership) which is costing us the election.
Without an alliance we (and they) are doomed – the mathematics is clear, and without mercy.