It’s Time – Red Letter Day? Jozef’s Slogan Idea
Jozef started an idea in the slogan area the other day, so Macarnie jotted a few words down as a rough draft
Bloggers are feeling we should try to develop ideas for slogans…
|
IT’S TIME.
——————-
The hour hand; slowly creeping, is nearly at high noon
The minute hand is catching up, they’ll be meeting very soon,
It’s time to name the polling day when Britain’s battle starts,
And Champions of different Parties fight, to win the voters’ hearts.
It’s time to rally round the flag, and this time not the red one.
Let’s make The Labour Party sick, or better still, a dead one
It’s time for change, in every sense; not merely in direction
It’s time to clear the streets of crime, and wards of all infection
It’s time to give the teachers back, their authority in class
And not allow the classroom thugs to bully and harass.
It’s time for lawful burghers to live in blessed peace
Let’s put the Bobby on the street: that’s where we want police
If these are your priorities, and yes, I do mean YOU
Be sure to put your voting mark in the box which means true blue
Macarnie
Recently Mark Gamon made some reference to snow and sand: Macarnie took up the inferred challenge:- Here is the result.
SAND AND SNOW
———————-
Let’s forget alliteration. Though the words are closely bound,
Where snow and sand proliferate they cover fruitful ground.
The wind blows both of these about and forms them into drifts.
On the one you’ll see sunbathers: in bikinis; some in shifts
Whilst Skiers and Cat drivers, on the slopes which they love best
Will vie to wear an outfit much more garish than the rest.
The pistes remind me of the funfair; queuing up to use the slide
And where there’s sandy beaches; there are surfers far and wide
Sand and snow have lots in common, Bondi Beach or Val d’Isere
There’d be less leisure playgrounds, if either were not there.
Also:
LABOUR’S WORK IN DISMANTLING GREAT BRITAIN
(Post devolution and pre total break-up of GB.pc)
Prudence Brown is coming: mid England sits and cowers,
He’s found a legal way to confiscate, those things which we thought ours.
If you lived in Scotland; whence he springs; you’d pay no tuition fee,
But in England, unlike Scotland, there’s nothing left for free.
Why do so many Scotsmen sit, in old Westminster’s halls?
Since there’s been devolution, the situation just appals.
England has no word to say, how Scottish laws are made
Scotsmen on the Left’s front bench, leave others in the shade,
And yet in Scotland’s Parliament, one Englishman’s too many,
You’ll find, like Simple Simon said, indeed, there are not any.
I live in England: I’m aware my name’s more Scots than most,
But allegiance to the Union Flag has always been my boast.
Since schism all the rage is, and Fat Controller wants more still,
Must we, post subdivision, bow to Labour’s Federalist will?
Another layer of toothless ‘government’, for which we’ll have to pay
Vote this farce upon the stage, and we’ll all live to rue the day.
In Labour’s sham tiara, these aren’t diamonds: merely paste
Just more useless talking shops; to add to Labour’s waste
First; they split the four home Nations; give three therefrom home rule,
England’s left as banker; no collateral: who’s the fool?
Their raiding parties, specially chosen, infiltrate our talking shop,
Proposing their own motions: beating England to the drop.
Two words I find are cogent, a matched pair; both mentioned here
“Lunatic”, and “Asylum”: one runs the other, so I fear
They’ll divide and draw new boundaries, each division lessening choice,
Agenda, selected by the leftists, British people! Where’s your voice?
BBB
Macarnie
103 Comments
Alan, I was living in Edinburgh at the time of the building of the Scottish Parliament so I’m quite familiar with the building costs. Even
Rate This:
0 
0
Alan – off topic re postal vote rigging
could you tell me where the piece is that you are referring to?
Rate This:
0 
0
Lets not forget the savings from getting rid of the wasteful and unwanted Regional Assemblies, plus not having to pay for neighbouring MPs to be bussed into England to sit in our own Parliament.
Rate This:
0 
0
Della
!!You’re right about this video – what a cool and dead funny film!!
http://englishprogressive.com/thestudent/index.htm
The English (turned Scottish) chap got me going when he was calling out “Can anyone explain to me why there’s no English Parliament voting on English issues for English people? anyone? ANYONE? no? oi! any-one? an-y-one?”
Surely we could hang that idea on to the frame of Conservative Party policy too…
Rate This:
0 
0
This entry into the blogosphere has , it appears, touched a raw nerve in so many of the bloggers. Have these expressions of dissatisfaction with the status quo just been spawned, or were they merely dormant, waiting for the fairy godmother’s wand,( pen), to allow them to be aired. The hierarchy of the Party must be apprised of such feeling, and if indeed , it is so strong as at first appears, should at least be included in future policy discussions.First things first though , eh, guys?
Get them out and us in! This is the stuff that dreams are made .
Rate This:
0 
0
English dissatisfaction with the UK constitution is something of a bandwagon at the moment. And the longer the problems remain unaddressed the worse it will become. The Conservatives fix – English votes on English laws – would be an abominable constitutional fudge, not least because it is a procedural change rather than a constitutional one and could simply be reversed by an incoming Labour government, thereby becomming a political football that would continue to threaten the union. England must be recognised as a nation with the same rights and privileges as the other home nations of the UK. Anything less is an insult, and while the Tories offer us less I will never vote for them. Gladstone considered the same policy in 1886 and rejected it as unworkable in practice.
(Devolution in the United Kingdom, Vernon Bogdanor).
The problems with the Conservative’s proposals are many but here are a few.
Firstly, it only deals with the West Lothian question about parliamentary voting. It does not cover the greater question of who governs England. Parliament votes mainly on proposals formulated and administered by Ministers of the United Kingdom Government who are not limited to those who represent English constituencies. For instance Alistair Darling and John Reid.
Secondly, should the Conservatives gain power and use their majority to enforce a change to parliamentary procedure, a subsequent Labour Government could simply reverse it. It could become a political football that would continue to threaten the Union. It must be a point of principle that fair represntative democracy should be a corner stone of the UK constitution, but not only that, there also has to be constitutional parity between the constituent parts.
A third objection is the fact that any legislation affecting only England will still be subject to amendment and approval in the House of Lords, which contains members from across the UK. The Scottish Executive is not subject to this scrutiny.
Fourthly, if Scotland is a nation then so too is England. A national parliament is not just a place for arguing over legislation, it is a statement. We require an English parliament as a symbol of England’s status as a nation. Why should England have no constitutional existence, not only in the UK but also in the EU?
Fithly, it does not provide a workable solution for the not unlikely eventuality of a Government being in power with an overall majority but without a majority of English seats. In that circumstance a UK government could not be sure about getting legislation needed for the government of England through Parliament without the votes of MP’s from Scotland (not to mention Wales and Northern Ireland). Would we have two leaders of incumbent parties in the House, an English First Minister and a UK Prime Minister? One representing the party of the English majority and one representing the part of the UK majority. A recipe for disaster!
Finally, many constitutionalists, and especially those in Scotland are opposed in principle to any inequality in the rights of MP’s elected to serve the United Kingdom in Westminster. In the words of the Department of Constitutional Affairs ‘parliament works on the fundamental principle that all MPs are equal’.
Rate This:
0 
0
As an entertaining distraction try entering “Scottish Raj” into Google and see what you get.
Even funnier if you press the “I’m feeling lucky” button.
Rate This:
0 
0
Gareth,
luved the Scottish Raj -
Rate This:
0 
0
not so sure about the ‘feeling lucky’ one tho’
>Sam Ruby: I’m feeling lucky
… and type in “miserable failure” and then press the “I’m feeling lucky” button.
Rate This:
0 
0
Melissa re postal voting
Just the case in birmingham
http://tinyurl.com/7y29s
also I blogged briefly on it with other links so will just use that to find rest and save space
http://tinyurl.com/3qcpd
As for English parliament, what is boris view does he support it
My view is that one should be set up and end the imbalance, but I would warn people of the cost
Just think of millenium dome if you do not believe it will be expensive, as it will simply create a huge cost, also what are people views on voting first past post or like here Proportion Representation
Rate This:
0 
0
you’ve got a good point Alan – I had only seen the Daily Mail – not much in the Telegraph…
Boris will seize on this
Rate This:
0 
0
Potal voting: in Particular in Birmingham.
Is there no limit, to what this government will do
To change the rules in order that they win,
They alter voting boundaries, and the way you make your cross,
A waste of hard earned cash on useless spin
I’m sorry: I’m a cynic, but cynics see the world
Through lenses less pink tinted than the most
Postal voting leaves doors open, for those who wish to cheat,
Have you lately checked deliveries of the post?
Rate This:
0 
0
IC Birmingham has a debate going on this
http://tinyurl.com/4jchr
Rate This:
0 
0
Gareth,
Agreed that England needs to be recognised specifically as such by the British parliament with full detailed respect for us as a nation within the UK. Agreed that there should be equality of representation throughout the UK ie equal constituency sizes – long overdue and now a serious and worsening problem .
In theory an English parliament already exists – it was not abolished by the Act of Union 1707 – all it needs is that the MP’s of England in the British parliament should decide to reconvene as the parliament of England and they ARE the English parliament . This applies to both Houses including the upper house which , as regards the parliament of England comprises only the peers of England .Thus your point 3 does not really apply.
Rate This:
0 
0
John, Lord Kinnock is Welsh is he not?
Rate This:
0 
0
Yes – but- The two houses of parliament of the English parliament prior to 1707 were composed of commons and lords from England and Wales – because Wales had no separate parliamentary existence from England .
Thus , if they should collectively decide to reconvene as the English parliament – which they could do immediately should they decide to do – there is no constitutional reason or method for the British parliament to stop them – then the ” English ” parliament would necessarily include MP’s in both houses from Wales also. Wales is the fly in the ointment here – perahps they might decide to abstain from attending , bearing in mind the Welsh Assembly . Or the reconvened parliament might examine the situation and use majority voting to limit its own new membership to England only.
Rate This:
0 
0
…poor old fly in the ointment!
Rate This:
0 
0
I see, then what about Baroness Ray Michie of Gallanach who took her oath in Gaelic?
Rate This:
0 
0
She would be , presumeably , Scottish , therefore a peer of Great Britain under the 1707 Act – therefore
SHE DOESN’T AS FAR AS ENGLAND IS CONCERNED>
Rate This:
0 
0
England and Ireland; Scotland and Wales
It’s the farcical tale of the Dog with three Tails
Two have been docked, and the other quite soon
Each Nationalist group’s feeling over the moon
Though the tails are excised, they’re still wagging with glee
Now they’re wagging the Dog, how on earth can that be?
The Tails, in the meantime, have kennels, all new
Paid for; well mainly; by the Dog: meaning you.
Tail’s kennel staff works but a few hours a week
But they’re paid full time wages: is that not a cheek?
Profligate Labour,do you sleep well at night?
How many more taxes, till we’re all bled white?
Rate This:
0 
0
one of your best, Mac!
Rate This:
0 
0
I see, sorry John, I’m a bit slow.
So what you are saying is that non-English peers should be banned from revising English legislation (and as things stand would have no say over legislation to the devolved administrations) effectively making them redundant for 70% of legislation passed (like Scottish MPs should be).
The only way to save them from the scrapheap would be to ring-fence English only legislation in an English Parliament and let them sit in judgement on pan-UK legislation. The Tories procedural change – English votes on English laws – would result in confusion in the second house I think, which is really the point that I was making. They would have to extend the procedural change to the second chamber – it would be a dog’s dinner and it would be subjective. The Scots would rightly argue that English legislation is their business as it affects Scottish spending. A federal system would allocate countries block grants without Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being seen simply as adjuncts to England that require a proportion of spending relative to that which England receives, thereby rendering Scottish arguments that they should vote on English legislation null and void.
Rate This:
0 
0
OK, I understand you John. Then we may as well just get rid of non-English peers since they cannot revise the house-keeping legislation of their home nations. Probably best to turn the Lords into a pan-UK senate that oversees the work of the separate legislatures of the home-nations as well as that of the UK parliament.
Rate This:
0 
0
I am rather reluctant to get bogged down in English / non English peers but lets face it , it is , in large measure, such reluctance that has allowed the present situation to arise . A peer is a peer of England or Scotland or Ireland or Great Britain – only the English ones should be allowed to sit in the upper house of England . Easy.
I have not dwelt on the definition of “peer” – my own feeling is that it should be extended to more people than just actual peers – an English ” great and good ” really with an elected element and out of cycle with the Commons election .
A point here is that the old English Parliament was always TWO houses ( Scotland was one only )- we should be careful to be historically true to structure of the English parliament – regardless of any pressure from the celts or the British gonernment to make a resurrected English parliament composed of one house only.
English legislation would only be the business of Scotland to the extent that Scottish legislation was also the business of England . I do not see a problem here – pan British legislation , including that 25-30% or so of legislation which affects England and Scotland – and Wales and Ulster – would be overseen be the province of the British parliament – with representation sbeing made to that parliament by the country parliaments and their respective Offices.
Rate This:
0 
0
The mini Culloden between Gareth and John has up to date produced no apparent results: however, if one more factor were introduced to the equation; namely the agreement , by common consent, of total cessation of any mutual dependency; of any kind, and for each of the four component Countries of the Union; none of the arguments now used would be cogent. Independence is self evident in its meaning. The mere fact of proximity, and the use, in part, of a common language, would immediately cease to have any meaning. Allies : yes. Interdependency : no! The whole argument is of no real value , since none of these things are going to happen; at least in the medium term, and in all probability ; ever. There are too many ties, familiar and historic, for there ever to be the total divorce of any member of this family of little Nations, from the others , despite the aspirations of a small minority of bigots.
Rate This:
0 
0
I can’t really see a complete divorce of the home nations, we do have more in common than apart and it’s always going to be in our interests to work together. However, although I’m not in favour of independence, I think you are being a bit unfair when you call the SNP or Plaid ‘bigots’. And in their own countries they are not that small a minority.
Rate This:
0 
0
Gareth, far be it from me to use a derogatory term against genuine patriots.( I don’t subscribe to the notion that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel) The term I used was aimed at those few ( unfortunately that influencial few), who carp on about the differences, without reference to the similarities , between the nations making up the UK.The last thing I would advocate, as anyone reading the whole thread would recognise, is the breakdown of the UK.
Rate This:
0 
0
I observe those embittered few -in all the nations of Great Britain who rant on about total independence of one another . Even if this were to happen I do not think that it would last .
The forces which drive the British nations together – as the BRITISH – are strong and have massive ,low level and perhaps ill expressed , public suport throughout the United Kingdom . Witness the waning of public support for the SNP in Scotland now that there is a Scottish parliament.
In England , while there is an obvious need for us to advance towards self governance in our own country with the central expression of that aspiration as an English Parliament and all that that implies in terms of recognition and negotiation with the other component nations of the UK , this must be qualified by a similar recognition that the United Kingdom , being United , is hugely greater than the sum of parts.
United , we have a unique and fantastic history . England needs to come into its own as an equal , confident and and easily self governing nation within the United Kingdom . The time is ripe and appropriate for this to take place . I think that once the English have considered the matter – which they have only just started to do – then they will give their support to the idea . Whilst the idea meets with passing derision and resistance in some quarters , I suspect that there is little real opposition in the other nations. Once accomplished , as it will be , the United Kindom will take on a new lease of life .
There is much yet to be done in the history of the world and a reborn British nation ,re-energised by an updated political settlement within the United Kingdom , with our history of political maturity and steadiness under fire , both actual and political , has much to contribute .
As much in the future as in the past.
Rate This:
0 
0
John: A nation’s culture and intrinsic values are embedded in the characteristic makeup of its people. It is the diversity of culture that makes up this particular brand of Nationship: perhaps Multi-Nationship within a fleet of culture carriers would be a better description for what we have here. United; I believe that we would / will undoubdedly continue to prosper; but divided? I fear there would be be a distict sense of loss, and not all one sided, should there be total division.
Rate This:
0 
0
Full independence of the 4 nations of the UK can’t happen as things stand now. For a start, international law says that any nation declaring independence from another must be capable of ruling and supporting itself. The fact that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are net receivers in the union clearly demonstrates that, of the four, only England is capable of supporting itself in terms of economic development and financial independence. An independent Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland would require huge loans to prop up it’s economy while it’s current economic growth rate would be adversely affected by the const of loan repayments. Scotland really only has one asset and that is land. As has been stated previously, all but one of the North Sea oil fields fall within English territorial waters, not Scottish. Scotland is sparsly populated and in the main, underdeveloped.
I don’t support the dissolution of the union, I am English first and British second. I really do object to being discriminated against in my own country though and if the price of self determination was the dissolution of the union then I would put England first and wave goodbye to the Act of Union.
The current political inbalance is wrong, legally and morally. The Human Rights Act, I feel, is being broken by the UK government in it’s willful and intentional continued discrimination of English people. Of the four nations in the United Kingdom, only England has been denied the right to determine its own future. This is clearly wrong.
Rate This:
0 
0
When Melissa writes “Recently Mark Gamon made some reference to snow and sand: Macarnie took up the inferred challenge:- Here is the result”…
Sorry to sound like a pedant, but do you mean ‘inferred’ or ‘implied’?
At stake is the meaning of whether Mark was making a deliberate challenge, or Macarnie was sensing a challenge that Mark didn’t mean to make.
Please disambiguate, if I may be forgiven the neologism. Thanks!
Rate This:
0 
0
Hi Andrew,
>What I like about this string is the bizarre juxtaposition of Klosters and Arabia. Snow and sand. It’s almost like poetry. We need a little poetry in our lives. Mark Gamon (comment in the previous post)
I would think that Mark’s comment was a strong hint and inference, wouldn’t you? and he did imply we should get on with it too… so, viva Macarnie for taking on the challenge!
ps I like your neologism and I hope I have disambiguated to your satisfaction. Please keep neologising…
Thanks to you!
Rate This:
0 
0
Quite true Macarnie, when Samuel Johnson said “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel” he was making a comment about scoundrels rather than patriots.
A distinction clear to any right thinking mind but often misunderstood by those less enlightened souls.
Rate This:
0 
0
Unrelated topical gag of the day:
[Ed: not acceptable language alas]
Rate This:
0 
0
Andrew Denny: sorry to be a pedant , but the word ‘disambiguate’ was first recognised (acc. Enc. Brit.) in 1963: hardly a neologism.( perhaps ‘mezzologism’?)
Rate This:
0 
0
Since this is the “campaign ideas” thread I’ll add to it, although not on the theme of constitutional reform.
I haven’t yet seen, although maybe it’s coming, Michael Howard saying anything about transport. There are millions of motorists in the UK who feel under the cosh from New Labour’s new charges. Everyone in Bucks, Berks, Surrey, Essex, Kent, and so on who commutes into central London now faces either paying a congestion charge, or the risk of paying one if the area covered increases, which they did not vote for and have no control over, and simply must pay in order to get to work. Everyone who wants to go into the centre of Bristol or Edinburgh or several other cities also faces the prospect of these local taxes, which (in London’s case) are not making nearly as much money or having nearly as much effect as they should have done. They should be scrapped as part of the Tories’ campaign against waste.
If there is a great desire to increase the cost of people using their cars on a per-mile basis, then the sensible way to do it is to scrap road tax, and increase fuel tax. This will please the environmental lobby too, because it will encourage people to buy more economic cars. It will also leave space on peoples windscreens for an insurance disk, which would, if implemented in the same way as in Germany for example, allow the police to easily spot drivers without insurance and remove this dangerous hazard from our roads.
The next target for my transport reforms would be the railways. As soon as legally possible, the system should be changed so that the rolling stock, services and track on any particular route are all owned by the same people. This would solve more problems than I can be bothered to list. Secondly, and by means of financial incentive if necessary, freight should be encouraged off the roads and onto the railways, on as large a scale as feasible. This might irritate the Road Haulage Association; that’s simply tough. The future of UK transport does not lie with it’s main arteries clogged with lorries. While we’re at it, ban lorries from overtaking on the motorway except where marked, and make the marked stretches be on the flat or downhill where the faster lorry will actually get past the slower in less than 3 miles. Allow lorries into the middle lane at junctions if necessary to get people onto the motorway safely, but otherwise they are banned. If we pay 1p more for a tin of beans, so be it.
If a road is dangerous, and speed cameras are erected to slow drivers down, all the proceeds from the cameras must be invested in improvements to the road, to increase visibility, or use better tarmac, or to increase the radius of corners, or to remove sections of reverse camber, etc. etc. etc. I’m sure the TRL have loads of ideas; make them use them.
Any speed camera shown to have increased accidents must be removed, and the reasons for the accidents that caused the siting of the speed camera revisited. It is clearly insufficient to say that speed kills, and cameras stop accidents – there are loads of cameras, and accidents are not falling. Make drivers who speed consistently take courses in safer driving – educate them, rather than simply hitting them in the wallet. Anyone convicted of driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving should also be forced to take a course in safer driving.
I think I’m done there. These are big, important issues, and they affect everyone. Stand up for the common motorist, it is a vote winning issue, in my eyes.
Rate This:
0 
0
Thank you Phil for your helpful comments and suggestions on transport. Even at this late stage before the General Election Michael Howard is keen to take useful ideas on board.
I would assure you that Mr Howard fully appreciates the widespread concern about transport issues. Indeed, since 1997, this subject has moved up the political agenda, partly because the current Government has failed to take the necessary decisions.
Conservatives are looking at ways to restore the public’s confidence in the way speed limits are set and enforced on our roads. There has been an increasing belief that some speed cameras are simply put in place to raise money rather than to save lives. We want to end this Government’s war on the motorist. We have pledged a full review of all speed cameras and to abolish the Safety Camera Partnerships as they are simply an unnecessary bureaucracy doing a job better done by the police. We would also promote active traffic policing, to tackle the worst drivers and get them off the road.
On congestion charging – the Conservative Party has long stood in opposition to congestion charging. . Our Conservative Mayoral candidate in London has also made clear that he opposes any extension of the congestion charge from its current limits. We believe that motorists are already paying exorbitant taxes to drive and that at a time when petrol prices are continuing to rise, road-user charging represents a further burden.
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Rate This:
0 
0
‘Andrew Denny: sorry to be a pedant , but the word ‘disambiguate’ was first recognised (acc. Enc. Brit.) in 1963: hardly a neologism.( perhaps ‘mezzologism’?)’
Macarnie – the word ‘nerd,’ trips through my lips.
Rate This:
0 
0
c’mon now – let’s be imaginative – I like made-up words! let’s disambiguate on that
Rate This:
0 
0
Nick. You are of course right: I am a nerd , but a sense of irony is necessary to recognise the reply for what it was.
Rate This:
0 
0
Dear Boris,
Your article in Telegraph of the 14th April , was well below your usual high standard.
Your suggestion of constitutional inequality between Scotland and England is a nonsense. If such inequality exists, then it has been vested by a UK democratically elected Westminster parliament, the same UK parliamentary system which has now reduced Scotland’s UK parliamentary representation in the forthcoming election.
To rubbish Brown just because he is a Scot is childishly asinine. It is on a par with rubbishing Oliver Letwin because he is vertically challenged, or rubbishing you for your coiffure.
In your mini anti-Scots tirade you conveniently forget to mention that Brown’s national credentials are , and always have been, avowedly ‘British’.This contrasts starkly with yours, which have become increasingly ‘Little Englander’.
You and Jeremy Paxman would benefit from reading Linda Colleys ” Britons Forging the Nation 1707-1837 ” . She stresses the Scots disproportionate positive contribution to Briton and Britishness. Surely ‘Little Englander-Anti Scots’ ethos is not based on envy ?
C’mon Boris …raise your game ….this article was a very lazy piece of journalism
rgds
Robert Trythall
Rate This:
0 
0
Whilst on the subject of road use, and the showing of insurance cover. In Germany, as already mooted , vehicle insurance , road tax and TUV(equates MOT)are displayed in such a form( License Plate) as to render other forms of display unnecessary. If the vehicle is not taxed, then the City or district where the vehicle is registered can, ( and when necessary does),recall the licence plates.(It is of no use making the point that a criminal will always circumvent the law, that is self evident.) A change of address to another district or city entails a re-registration of the vehicle,( not forgetting a re-registration of address for the owners) and a subsequent change of licence plate.This enables easier recognition of a vehicles place of keeping, and ensures that the due share of road tax goes to the correct authority. Saturday afternoons and Sundays until 20.00 hrs are free from heavy transport on all major roads, including Motorways , unless with express permission , on some acceptable urgent delivery grounds, obtained on a case by case basis from the necessary transport authority. When these facts are added to the benefit of a superior, and still nationally run rail system, carrying more freight than ours, you have the basis of a less stressful road system. I lived for many years in Germany, and learned to prize the relative tranquility of weekend driving, amongst other things, too numerous to mention.
Rate This:
0 
0
It is most interesting as to how this thread has changed subject .It commenced as a catalogue of complaints against the Labour regime – all sensible comments but nothing new – but only really took off when it went onto Labour’s dismantling of GB and in particular its anti Englishness and the serious constitutional imbalance against England which now prevails.
It has then trailed back to worthy but hardly earthshaking topics such as transport .
Not that I disagree with the sentiments expressed re transport – Labour , as with most things , organises transport , if that is the word , mainly by gimmick and soundbite and crass incompetence – (and carefully makes sure that transport investment in Scotland per capita is vastly greater than it is in England )
The latter from R Trythall was revealing – he really wants to pretend that all comments on the imbalance of the constitution and the gigantic political and financial overprivilege of the celts within the UK doesn’t really exist and any such comment is just English anti Scottishness .
I sense a feeling of relief from the regular BJ blog contributers that the topic has veered away from the imbalance of the constitution against England ,ie no English Parliament ,and onto more congenial matters . This represents , of course , a central feeling in Conservative circles – that if one keeps on dreaming of the old United kingdom as it was before 1998 then it might somehow be there again . In particular , if one attempts to ignore the English Question
( ” oh ,all right then ,you can English votes on English matters – now what’s wrong with that ! “)- – well plenty is wrong with that – it ain’t a parliament is what ‘s wrong – and it is typical of the dismissive attitude to all things English which the British establishment deploys and has always deployed – but it won’t work any more .
- then it might go away – and , anyway , to go on about such things will simply rock the UK boat even further and endanger its sinking – - – and what about all those Scots in the Conservative party – it is important not to offend them you know .
Get realistic boys and girls and stop dodging the true question. The constitutional question is absolutely central to the whole political situation in what is still , just about , the United Kingdom .
There is an obvious and gross inequity in the its governance and probably the only way of saving the UK is that there be an English Parliament and that , in effect , the UK become a federal state .
What is curious is that such a developement which is becoming widely popular in England -whenever the question is asked – has not been seized upon with alacrity by the Conservatives given its basic attraction in that part of the UK where Conservative support is strongest – England – and why so many Conservatives opt to ignore the whole area of debate .
Curious .
And self defeating .
And I am sure that the celts can’t believe their luck that the Conservatives haven’t twigged on this one yet.
Rate This:
0 
0
I think that the one item you have missed out on, John, is that dreaded word,’ Federation’.It must be clear that anyone capable of shaping the political mind of the Country as a whole, into the acceptability of belonging to one Federal State, will have paved the way for our total surrender to a burgeoning Federal Europe.Nothing would suit the French ambitions of a Francophone Europe( read the previous extracts from the speeches of contemporary governing French Politicians: in preceding blogs ), since they dream of a Europe devoid of Anglo Saxon influence.
To revert to the original subject. The Scots word Sassenach means the same ie Saxon and by association; English.Seems that all the Celts( including the Welsh )have much in common with the French, in their disdain for the old Anglos
Therefore, in the name of fairness, we do need an English parliament,but without Confederation, . I do not wish to be a part of a Europe which denudes me of rights( and responsibilities) which we have enjoyed since 1215
Rate This:
0 
0
Dear Macarnie ,
re Federation .
I cannot say that the detail of the semantics here particularly bothers me . In effect it would be a federation of the United Kingdom . By virtue of it not being a continental entity and being a British one , I have no doubt that , in practice , it would be quite different both in flavour and in practice from a continental federation . When Cromwell abolished the monarchy in 1649 he effectively set up a republic but , very sensibly , refrained from calling it thus – we had a “Commonwealth ” instead – a much more acceptable and less threatening word to the English . The Commonwealth went on to be very successful – for a while .
It was ,though , one thing – English – and we need to get it back .
Rate This:
0 
0
Re Federation/Commonwealth
I dont, as John suggests, ” pretend that all comments on the imbalance of the constitution and the gigantic political and financial overprivilege of the celts within the UK doesn’t really exist and any such comment is just English anti Scottishness”. What I am suggesting is that the English in addressing these constitutional matters lack intellectual vigour by retreating into what I regard as the ‘atypical little- englander’ rant. Refreshingly, quite often these anti-scottish rants become more expansive by incorporating ecumenical anti-europeaness !!!
Neither John and Macarnie acknowledge the political reality that the UK was a de facto federation prior to devolution.
The concept that a truly federal UK would by default create ‘Conservative England ‘ is politically naive. Stripping out non-conservative Scottish and Welsh seats cannot avoid the stark political reality that Labour is the majority ‘English ‘ political party. Current polls for the forthcoming general election suggest this will be the continuing political reality. .
The devolved Scottish assembly is voted by proportional representation (PR) and does not have an over-all majority . Nothing in England’s poltical demography suggests that that an independent England,even under PR, would be “Conservative England ”
These two fundemental points might go some way to explain why the Conservative party is not playing the ” Federal” card
The ” Midlothan question ” was raised by a Scottish Labour MP but the Conservative party has never answered it, notwithstanding the Conservative party would be,ostensibly,the major beneficiary
rgds
robert
Rate This:
0 
0
1. Your accusation that re “little englander ” is entirely wrong – and is typical of the sort of remark employed by those who wish to prevent the re- emergence of a specifically English government , for the English – a pretty basic democratic right ,I would have thought, – after all most other countries have it .
2. The English do not lack intellectual vigour . There are a considerable number of keen minds in England – and in Scotland also – who recognise that the present British constitutional situation is unbalanced in the extreme , is discriminatory and is unsustainable. ( by the way , don’t you mean intellectual rigour ?)
3. There is a point that after 298 years since the act of Union , many of the English , much more so than the celts , a very confused re British and English parliaments . They tend to cotton pretty quickly on considering and learning about the matter , though – unlike the politicians of all parties .
4. The party political makeup of an English parliament is entirely conjectural – and also entirely irrelevant to the debate . The key point is that we have a parliament again – basic home rule .
5. As to why the Conservatives , who possibly have the most to gain from there being an EP , have not been pushing the idea for the last 6 years , – it is a complete mystery . Probably , the cause is an ongoing refusal to accept the constitutional changes brought in by Blair coupled with the above confused thinking ( held by many Conservative MP’s !), and a lack of alacrity to seize the opportunity presented ( if the situation were reversed and Blair perceived that an EP provided him with an opportunity you can be sure he would have dashed in and made it his own ).
Rate This:
0 
0
john i will give you a point by point reply
1)Wrong . I want England to have its own parliament . But as with the Scottish model it will be difficult to deny England the PR model .
This in turn will dictate the Federal model
2) I did mean ‘vigour’. Your point (5) would
confirm its use quite apposite. I will accept ‘rigour ‘ but please refer to (4) below
3) What is your point ?
4) Nonsense . This statement indicates a lack of intellectual rigour . You cannot conceive an English parliament without conceiving how it is elected. I recommend you review the US 18th C constitutional debate and in particualr the ” Federalst ” papers
5)Possibly due to a lack of intellectal rigour and vigour ?
rgds
Rate This:
0 
0
My understanding of federalism is epitomised , in a European context, by the German model. The various states are governed on a limited basis by their own Parliament or State Assembly, whilst being under the central Government’s overall strategic umbrella.
Individual political units, of whatever size, surrender their sovereignty to a central authority, whilst still retaining residual powers of government. Wales and Scotland did not , until relatively recently, have these powers. They do now, whereas England does not. Since all parts of a federation are supposedly equal, this leaves an enigma: are we rather part of, as John earlier suggested, a Commonwealth, since literally speaking, we are not part of a federation, since all states do not have indivual, though limited, freedom to legislate separately from the Central Authority.
Rate This:
0 
0
Robert,
Leaving aside the exact nature of the intellectual effort in England ( and I think that my point re English confusion over the constitutional settup IS pertinent )
- the key conclusion , upon which we agree , is that there should be an English parliament . I don’t really see why it should take the form of the PR model – this has never been so far as I know , a feature of English constitutional
practice . An EP must be a specifically English entity – just as the Scottish parliament was re-set up to be specifically Scottish – and that means majority voting – a central feature of English debate since the so called ” Dark Ages ” .
I am not sure , but I think that Scottish parliaments prior to 1707 were also majority voting – in which case their new parliament is , in as sense , “unScottish ” – Blair pulled a fast one there , probably to head off the SNP.
Macarnie ,
Yes , the new UK would be a sort of federation . The word is strange and seems rather continental , though I don’t think that it would be , as practiced .
Closer , philosophically , to home , think Australia – which is a federation – the new UK could be along the same lines , perhaps , rather stronger national governments .
Rate This:
0 
0