Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Its official. Corbyns name will be on the ballot.

Now to see the pantomime play out some more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36778135

Members joining after February this year will not be able to vote.

Unless they pay £25 during a two-day window.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Unless they pay £25 during a two-day window.

Democracy at its finest.

Can we trade our last 6 for Attlee and Churchill back?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Unless they pay £25 during a two-day window.

Democracy at its finest.

Apparently that wasn't on the official agenda, the vote was taken after some people had already left and it's open to being overturned by law since Labour membership is supposed to let you vote in leadership elections.

The circus truly never ends.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Unless they pay £25 during a two-day window.

Democracy at its finest.

Apparently that wasn't on the official agenda, the vote was taken after some people had already left and it's open to being overturned by law since Labour membership is supposed to let you vote in leadership elections.

The circus truly never ends.

I liked this quote from some opponents of Corbyn -

However, Corbyn’s opponents believe the other rules of the contest, agreed after he had left the room to address his supporters outside, make him “absolutely beatable”, saying, “we can win this, fair and square”.

Yep, they can win it "fair and square" by excluding a significant portion of the party membership who they expect would vote against their chosen candidate.

(quote taken from http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/12/jeremy-corbyn-must-be-on-labour-leadership-ballot-paper-party-rules-nec )

SemperMortis wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Good Job Brits on leaving the EU. If I was a part of that country and voted to leave I would be extremely offended by the recent remarks about how the British people voted incorrectly. Telling an entire nation they are wrong because they don't agree with your viewpoint is rather ignorant.

Telling a nation that they're wrong and then backing your argument up, however, isn't.

And if that argument is based on "belief" and not fact then it still is wrong. It was rather amusing how after the vote the British economy tanked for a day or two and the liberal media jumped all over it. usually with something along the lines of "SEE WE TOLD YOU SO!, STUPID BRITISH PEONS!"

And now after a very short period of time the economy has not only stabilized but is trending upwards and has more then recovered its losses. I don't see those same media outlets saying "whoops our bad".

The economy was always going to drop after the Brexit result came through since no-one knew what would happen. Markets hate uncertainty. The pound has only recovered slightly since Theresa May won the PM bid - it's nowhere near what it was before the referendum though. This is only the short term effects, we're yet to see the long term effects. There are already talks of the science and research sector missing out on world leading researchers for collaborations and funding (which may or may not get replaced). Then we need to see just exactly what Theresa May manages to get for us in the Brexit deal, if it even happens (was a quiet Remainer), never mind making new trade deals with other countries such as the USA and Canada (since the existing deals were made through the EU). Furthermore, the media is either Brexit or Bremain. You'll never get neutral facts within the media, you'll need to do your own research.

Also I am offended that you proclaim that Britain voted the right way. 48% of voters would disagree with you. It was an incredibly close call and while I dejectedly accepted the result, to suggest that we had voted the correct decision and disregard the people who voted Remain is a slap in the face. Especially for those of us (myself included) who will be living a good 60 years or so with this monumental decision. As a result I am considering my options about moving abroad. Brexit could be the best thing that the UK ever did, likewise it could be the worst thing that the UK ever did - and I'm not willing to take the risk if it's the latter.

I think the objection to saying Britain voted wrongly (or rightly) is more of a philosophical objection.

As in, is it correct for an outsider to say that the democratic answer to an opinion based question can be "wrong."

The principle of representative democracy is that your elected representative has to represent you and take your interests into account even if you didn't actually vote for him.

The EU referendum however reduces an extremely complex political and social issue to a single binary yes/no choice and does not allow the presentation of any compromises.

It therefore denies the core concept of representative democracy.

In terms of benefit to the UK as a whole, or sections of the population, it is still very hard to make out areas where the EU free UK is likely to be better off, and much easier to discern areas where things are going wrong straight away (like science projects.)

Even the most downcast of society are likely to feel a negative impact of their choice since EU funding and to some degree the benefit of EU trade protection was concentrated in the areas that voted Leave.

There aren't any concrete reasons why being out of the EU is likely to lead to a better, more prosperous UK. In fact there is a good chance there won't be a UK in five years time.

I hate feeling so depressed about it. The only positive I can see is that the power elite may have been so shaken up by the protest vote that they reverse a lot of the policies of the past 30 years.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

Spoiler:

Corbyn always reminds me of the annoying peasant from Monty Python & The Holy Grail lol.

"supreme executive power should be from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony!!"

I don't recall the media declaring a winner to the recent battle of the Thames but i think it could qualify as an aquatic ceremony.

Owen Smith is now on the ballot for the leadership of the Labour Party.

The farce continues. Even I am wanting JC to win this now.

I know Corbyn is red til he's dead. But he should not have hit that massive self destruct button just because of the colour......

Well, at least the Labour blood letting is keeping the important issues off the front pages.

Bravo people, bravo.

 Frozocrone wrote:


Also I am offended that you proclaim that Britain voted the right way. 48% of voters would disagree with you. It was an incredibly close call and while I dejectedly accepted the result, to suggest that we had voted the correct decision and disregard the people who voted Remain is a slap in the face. Especially for those of us (myself included) who will be living a good 60 years or so with this monumental decision. As a result I am considering my options about moving abroad. Brexit could be the best thing that the UK ever did, likewise it could be the worst thing that the UK ever did - and I'm not willing to take the risk if it's the latter.

I doubt it will be 60 years. The vast majority of the younger populace were more forward thinking and preferred a world of open movement rather than the past isolationist thinking. In 20 years these people will be the dominant part of the populace and will almost certainly want back in. Whatever happens the Brexit will be a medium term issue, that is likely to have severe economical consequences. But I'm considering the same as to how to emigrate, unfortunately I only have english parents and grandparents so I'm wondering whether an EU country will accept asylum on the grounds of persecution by politician idiocy.

Whirlwind wrote:


I doubt it will be 60 years. The vast majority of the younger populace were more forward thinking and preferred a world of open movement rather than the past isolationist thinking. In 20 years these people will be the dominant part of the populace and will almost certainly want back in.

Had we stayed in, that would have been the case. But once we've left, the weight for the status quo will shift again as people grow up not being part of the EU. Whether people will want to rejoin will be a result of many factors, from how satisfactory the links developed in the ensuing two decades are, to how well/badly both us and the EU do. The concept of being in the EU as 'forward' is whiggish, and therefore intrinsically flawed.

Some amusing stuff- So Corbyn is allowed on the ballot paper, but only people who have been with the Labour Party more than 6 months can vote. So that cuts about 100,000 people from the vote lol.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
Some amusing stuff- So Corbyn is allowed on the ballot paper, but only people who have been with the Labour Party more than 6 months can vote. So that cuts about 100,000 people from the vote lol.

Aye. Most of the £3 vote people will have to re-apply now.

It's really quite interesting. The fact they let Corbyn go automatically to the ballot paper removes any accusations of a 'stitch-up', and the Unions swung that by 18 votes to 14. But when it came to the £3 members, enough NEC votes went the other way that there's clearly sufficient feeling at the top that the £3 voters aren't serious enough members that they probably shouldn't participate.

So they've decided to raise the cost, I assume because they figure anyone willing to chip in £25 is actually a serious supporter and should have a say. It'll also help boost party coffers. I can't say I disagree with their assessment so far, I did think Corbyn should be on the list, but I also thought the £3 entry made it too accessible to people with no knowledge or interest in the Labour party beyond one man/issue, to influence things like a reality tv show. This is a good way of proceeding, I think.

I suppose if it hurts Corbyn's base substantially, what it shows is that his 'mandate' actually rested upon a number of whimsical, ultimately uninvolved people. If he wins it with this rule though, it becomes clear that his mandate really is a mandate from the masses (well, the Labour Party members), and the PLP should fall into line. A good way of ascertaining the truth, really.

If I were hard left and new to Labour I would try and find the £25, be quite motivated and bloody minded about it in fact.

This is so obviously a deliberate attempt to mow the lawn and cut out bottom rung support, there will be clear motivation to make it fail.

Between you me and Dakka, I dont think it will work even if the above isnt true. Yes, 100K cant vote unless they cough up, but Corbyn has been in longer than six months and has a huge standing majority.

 Ketara wrote:


Had we stayed in, that would have been the case. But once we've left, the weight for the status quo will shift again as people grow up not being part of the EU. Whether people will want to rejoin will be a result of many factors, from how satisfactory the links developed in the ensuing two decades are, to how well/badly both us and the EU do. The concept of being in the EU as 'forward' is whiggish, and therefore intrinsically flawed.

Unlikely. A greater proportion of older people vote and 20 years is not long enough to remove all memory of being in the EU. Many of those people that voted leave will have moved on, whilst the younger generation will then make up most of the voting population in the future. The young generation will not forget what was snatched away for them just as middle age people still remember the poll tax issues 30 years ago because of their impact and why the tires are very careful not to be seen as going back to those days. It is progressive to think that a larger wider community is beneficial over an isolated 'us and them' view. We no longer live in the 1800's where you can find mist resources you need on your own doorstep. In a period of globalisation, likely where significant elements of the work force will be moved to robotics then being part of a larger group will give you more clout and control over the world events and direction.

On the issue of JC election I fail to see why the last 6 months voters will make that much of a difference. He still had a clear majority 9 months ago, these members will still be there despite the 6 month decision.

Whirlwind wrote:

Unlikely. A greater proportion of older people vote and 20 years is not long enough to remove all memory of being in the EU. Many of those people that voted leave will have moved on, whilst the younger generation will then make up most of the voting population in the future..

It'll remove all memory of it from the subsequent 20 years worth of matured adults, and assuming no great economic catastrophe on our part and success on the EU's part, where will the political desire to re-run a new entry come from? Especially considering a new entry would be a full subscription to things like the Euro, which many remainers even now do not want.

Even if your model were accurate, all it would guarantee is that we'd leave again twenty years subsequent to rejoining because another 20 years worth of people who didn't care for the EU would then become the largest voterbase. Unless you're going to not only predict the economic consequences I just gave, but a societal attitude shift forty years from now?

The young generation will not forget what was snatched away for them

Which is? Visa free travel in Europe? Being able to export to Europe with one less bit of paperwork? Another academic grant body to apply to? Beyond vague things like 'European unity', there's precious little in the way of hard obviously visible benefits enjoyed by the majority of the populace. And I'm really doubting that should things go alright, those things would be sufficient to impact upon opinion twenty five years hence. Things will be decided by the issues of the day and recent memory when that time comes.

just as middle age people still remember the poll tax issues 30 years ago because of their impactand why the tires are very careful not to be seen as going back to those days. It is progressive to think that a larger wider community is beneficial over an isolated 'us and them' view. We no longer live in the 1800's where you can find mist resources you need on your own doorstep.

See, I'm afraid this is where I stop taking you seriously. This is literally the classical whiggish view of society, where everything is always ascending to some new culturally superior civilisation, that we are only now just reaching the pinnacle of. Every single generation before you has said exactly the same thing in the name of 'progress', but I'm pretty sure what you and a 19th century colonialist would view as 'progressive' are quite substantially different. In another 50 years time, it'll be different again.

It would have been ridiculous for the current leader not to automatically go on the ballot form, in my opinion. The business with the £3 members is slightly different.

It was the £3 members who swept Corbyn into power. The vote to exclude them from the election came after Corbyn and a couple of his supporters had left the meeting, and it was not a scheduled agenda item.

It therefore looks like a bit of a stitch-up.

This of course emphasises how disliked Corbyn is within the party leadership and, more importantly, his lack of skill at political management.

A seasoned operator like Harold Wilson would never have allowed himself to be outmanoeuvred in this way. After getting the vote in his favour he would have lit his pipe, asked if there was any other business, declared the session closed and called for beer and sandwiches to celebrate a job well done. No chances for sneaky voting behind his back.

All that being said, I agree with Ketara's point that £3 members should not be given the same weight in voting as full price members unless they want to chip in to party funds to the same extent.

If Corbyn's power is underlined by a strong supportive vote in this election, he will carry on for a couple of years at least. Possibly he may improve, or he may turn out actually to be useless and widely unpopular. The next set of council elections will be something of a Litmus test on the success of whoever ends up as leader.

The big question is whether the ABC vote (Anyone But Corbyn) can find a realistic candidate. I don't see much point in canning Corbyn to replace him with someone who may turn out just as poor. Better that the party accept several years in the wilderness in order to wrangle its internal issues, develop a new strategy, and allow the public to ferment its dislike of the Conservatives.

 Orlanth wrote:
If I were hard left and new to Labour I would try and find the £25, be quite motivated and bloody minded about it in fact.

https://crowdfunding.justgiving.com/labour-leadership-vote?utm_campaign=projectpage-share-owner&utm_content=labour-leadership-vote&utm_medium=Yimbyprojectpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_term=aWprZDad6


"Weʼre raising £5,000 to Help cover the cost of voting in Labour Leadership contest"


not exactly collecting the £s at a substantial rate, but it's there...

seen it a few times on FB already today.

A few general points:

I never thought I'd find myself in agreement with John McDonnell, but these Labour plotters are next to useless. Talk about night of the rubber knives

As for breaking away, they wont don't it - they haven't got the balls.

Secondly, in response to Ketara, Orlanth, Kilkrazy, et al, you'll get no argument from me about the legality of May's ascension to the role of PM. Legally, and technically, it's above board, but that doesn't make it right, and yes I'm aware there is historical precedent for this, but even so, we#re in the absurd situation of May herself being unable to call a GE to legitimise her status, because the fix term parliament act binds her.

Again, I repeat my claim that this is a Mickey Mouse democracy. Nothing that has happened these past weeks can sway me from that viewpoint.

Up here in Scotland, there is 1 Tory MP, but still we have a Tory PM foisted on us. We voted to stay in the EU by a 2/3rds margin, and yet, here we are getting yanked out of it.

Democracy? Don't make me laugh...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Again, I repeat my claim that this is a Mickey Mouse democracy. Nothing that has happened these past weeks can sway me from that viewpoint.

Up here in Scotland, there is 1 Tory MP, but still we have a Tory PM foisted on us. We voted to stay in the EU by a 2/3rds margin, and yet, here we are getting yanked out of it.

Democracy? Don't make me laugh...

With all due respect, that comes down to who you're talking about it being a democracy of or for; i.e. the democratic grouping being discussed. Is the British Parliament accountable to Cornwall? No. To Scotland? No. To Great Britain? Broadly speaking, yes. Scotland is treated in this regard as having as much as of a general say as the equivalent number of people living elsewhere, be it in Ireland or London. If it were undertaken in absolutely any other way, it would grant Scottish votes a primacy above all others, which would indeed make it a mickey mouse democracy.

My perspective, after much thought, is simple. When Scotland went to the polls, it went there with certain promises of devolution in mind. Foreign policy and trade agreements were not one of those devolutions. Scotland voted to stay on the understanding that foreign policy was subordinate to the will of the British Government, which derives its mandate from the British Parliament, which derives its mandate from the majority of people in Britain. There was never any promise, implied or otherwise, that the devolved Scottish Parliament would have control of foreign policy, or that Scotland would in future be allowed to make its own choices on foreign policy separate to those of the British Government.

As such, the last independence referendum is still valid, and calling for a fresh one on the basis of 'the foreign policy shift now being undertaken is not what the Scottish people want', well, sorry? That was kind of part of the deal. If Scotland voted to stay, it was implicitly agreeing that foreign policy would run from Westminster, there was never any offer of anything else on that subject. If Scotland wanted an independent foreign policy, it would have voted to leave. That was kind of the point, either the primacy of Westminster in certain affairs was accepted to be valid, or Scotland needed to make it's own way.

Otherwise, where does it end? Seriously? How can Scotland maintain a separate foreign policy whilst remaining part of Britain? Genuine question there. All I've heard so far is, 'INDYREF MK2 WOOO', but you can't hold an indyref every time a policy shift in the domain of the British Government (which has been accepted as the legitimate authority to make those decisions for the collective British people) occurs. What would be a practical solution to this issue, that doesn't either overrule the primacy of the British Government, or turn us into a mickey mouse democracy whereby Scottish votes are considered to be worth more? Because I can't think of anything.

Either Scotland has to accept that foreign policy is the department of the British Government (and therefore the British people as a whole), or it has to be independent. And that choice was made not that long ago. I suppose another indyref could be called, but even if Scotland voted to stay again, all it would mean is that Scotland reserves the right to call an indyref every time the British Government makes a decision. In which case, it's not really accepting the primacy of the British Parliament?

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:


If you lean towards extremes, left/right wing, you are likely to only mix with people of the same ideology. So therefore the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and likely to be meeting people that reinforce the belief that he is what the Labour party needs. All those new members that voted for JC, and those joining, are all of the same ideology. No matter what they say they, can’t possibly know what the majority of Labour voters are thinking.

The MP’s calling for him to step down will have a better feel for things as they will be meeting these voters. This is probably why they feel he needs to go, there is concern that Labour won’t win the next election. The idea that these MP’s are self-serving actually reinforces the concerns over JC. If they are so concerned about keeping their seat and all the benefits that go with it, they will want Labour to be attractive to the general public. JC might be motivated by noble ideals, but his appeal will be too limited.

Sorry, but that's a load of tripe, as illustrated above in the post you quote. Surely, if MPs are so sensitive to the realities of their electorate's views, all those Labour MPs up here wouldn't have managed to spend the last decade being consistently, repeatedly, unrepentantly wrong, to the point where they were finally got rid of with swings of 30-35%, sometimes with majorities so many thousands strong the seats were considered "bastions" of Labour flipping completely the other way.

As for noble ideals and limited appeal - polling consistently shows the electorate are far, far to the left of the PLP in terms of their policy preferences, to the point that nationalisation of utilities, transport etc routinely comes back between 60 and 70%, the problem is they've been convinced we can't afford to do those things. Now, Jeremy might not be any more able to persuade people that's wrong than his predecessors, but this idea that he's a raging Trot trying to appeal to a nation of Little Thatchers is just flat out untrue.

But regardless, the opinions of the PLP on Corbyn's electability are not sufficient justification to overrule the democratic will of the party membership and change the rules of the party on a whim to exclude the incumbent leader who is entitled to be on the ballot. If the PLP want to launch a leadership challenge, that's their right, ill-advised though it is at the present time, but this grotesque perversion of the democratic process - staggered, orchestrated resignations with media collusion to try and force him to step down, then when that failed throwing out the party rulebook and removing him from the ballot via a secret vote of the NEC - is disgusting behaviour, and if the goal is genuinely to make Labour "electable"(maybe I'm old fashioned by the way, but I always thought you did that by persuading people to agree with you, not by just vacantly trotting along in the wake of public opinion as interpreted by focus groups), is ludicrously and hilariously counter-productive. If this farce actually succeeds in offing Corbyn the party is going to go into full-scale rebellion, the unions will pull their funding, and the media narrative for the next five years is going to be of a Labour party tearing itself to pieces, assuming Labour survives as a coherent entity at all.

Electable? Labour in this state couldn't win a school talent show, nevermind a national election, and nobody's to blame for that but the PLP morons who apparently launched this whole debacle without ever once asking themselves what they'd do if Corbyn didn't so as he was told.

As I keep saying, no matter how noble his ideals are, he needs to be able to appeal to more than just traditional Labour voters, which he isn't. I'm not saying that currently the rest of the Labour party is any better, but if they actually made the effort, they could be. Corbyn at his core is too left wing, he may learn to compromise (I don't think he really could personally. If he did it would be get what he wanted) but the public won't trust him enough.

You could argue that the Liberals are potentially in a stronger position. Now that most of those that the public felt betrayed their values have gone, they could rebuild and attract Labour voters. The country needs a fair system, not a radical one.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Again, I repeat my claim that this is a Mickey Mouse democracy. Nothing that has happened these past weeks can sway me from that viewpoint.

Up here in Scotland, there is 1 Tory MP, but still we have a Tory PM foisted on us. We voted to stay in the EU by a 2/3rds margin, and yet, here we are getting yanked out of it.

Democracy? Don't make me laugh...

With all due respect, that comes down to who you're talking about it being a democracy of or for; i.e. the democratic grouping being discussed. Is the British Parliament accountable to Cornwall? No. To Scotland? No. To Great Britain? Broadly speaking, yes. Scotland is treated in this regard as having as much as of a general say as the equivalent number of people living elsewhere, be it in Ireland or London. If it were undertaken in absolutely any other way, it would grant Scottish votes a primacy above all others, which would indeed make it a mickey mouse democracy.

My perspective, after much thought, is simple. When Scotland went to the polls, it went there with certain promises of devolution in mind. Foreign policy and trade agreements were not one of those devolutions. Scotland voted to stay on the understanding that foreign policy was subordinate to the will of the British Government, which derives its mandate from the British Parliament, which derives its mandate from the majority of people in Britain. There was never any promise, implied or otherwise, that the devolved Scottish Parliament would have control of foreign policy, or that Scotland would in future be allowed to make its own choices on foreign policy separate to those of the British Government.

As such, the last independence referendum is still valid, and calling for a fresh one on the basis of 'the foreign policy shift now being undertaken is not what the Scottish people want', well, sorry? That was kind of part of the deal. If Scotland voted to stay, it was implicitly agreeing that foreign policy would run from Westminster, there was never any offer of anything else on that subject. If Scotland wanted an independent foreign policy, it would have voted to leave. That was kind of the point, either the primacy of Westminster in certain affairs was accepted to be valid, or Scotland needed to make it's own way.

Otherwise, where does it end? Seriously? How can Scotland maintain a separate foreign policy whilst remaining part of Britain? Genuine question there. All I've heard so far is, 'INDYREF MK2 WOOO', but you can't hold an indyref every time a policy shift in the domain of the British Government (which has been accepted as the legitimate authority to make those decisions for the collective British people) occurs. What would be a practical solution to this issue, that doesn't either overrule the primacy of the British Government, or turn us into a mickey mouse democracy whereby Scottish votes are considered to be worth more? Because I can't think of anything.

Either Scotland has to accept that foreign policy is the department of the British Government (and therefore the British people as a whole), or it has to be independent. And that choice was made not that long ago. I suppose another indyref could be called, but even if Scotland voted to stay again, all it would mean is that Scotland reserves the right to call an indyref every time the British Government makes a decision. In which case, it's not really accepting the primacy of the British Parliament?

I'm calling for 2 things:

1) Article 50 to be invoked ASAP

2) A general election to be held so that the British public can have a say on May's coronation.

Talk of the Labour party being a shambles, and this being able unable to provide an effective opposition, is neither here nor there. That's not the British public's problem. At a stretch, the SNP could be the opposition - they seem to be making a good go of it as it stands.

If these two points happen, then, and only then can we claim to have some semblance of democracy.

The political instability card being played for not invoking article 50 won't wash anymore. We have May in place. Give her a few weeks to get settled in, and devise a strategy/negotiating team, and let's get on with it.

As always with the Scotland issue, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As always with the Scotland issue, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm aware we disagree on the whole referendum thing, but that wasn't the point of my post. I'm genuinely curious as to exactly what action or solution could be undertaken to acknowledge the fact Scotland can vote differently without either undermining democracy in Britain (e.g. prioritising Scottish opinion above British), or effectively undermining the primacy of the British Government (e.g. another indyref every time a policy shift occurs). Can you think of anything? Because I honestly can't, and I'm curious to see if anyone else can.

I personally feel that a snap election now would be a very bad idea. We need a solid government. Labour Party is in no condition to contend for a premiership. Corbyn is not PM material and frankly, neither are any of the other Labour leadership candidates.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As always with the Scotland issue, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm aware we disagree on the whole referendum thing, but that wasn't the point of my post. I'm genuinely curious as to exactly what action or solution could be undertaken to acknowledge the fact Scotland can vote differently without either undermining democracy in Britain (e.g. prioritising Scottish opinion above British), or effectively undermining the primacy of the British Government (e.g. another indyref every time a policy shift occurs). Can you think of anything? Because I honestly can't, and I'm curious to see if anyone else can.

A full federal solution, with an elected senate to replace the lords, and England divided into regions to balance things up. That would be a big help and a good start.

It's not England's fault for being 85% of the UK's population, but it's high time something was done to address the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I personally feel that a snap election now would be a very bad idea. We need a solid government. Labour Party is in no condition to contend for a premiership. Corbyn is not PM material and frankly, neither are any of the other Labour leadership candidates.

I'm no fan of the Conservative party, but if Labour are a shambles, it's not the Tories fault, and the British public shouldn't be denied a GE just because a bunch of Blairites are too busy stabbing Corbyn in the back, than provide effective opposition.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As always with the Scotland issue, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm aware we disagree on the whole referendum thing, but that wasn't the point of my post. I'm genuinely curious as to exactly what action or solution could be undertaken to acknowledge the fact Scotland can vote differently without either undermining democracy in Britain (e.g. prioritising Scottish opinion above British), or effectively undermining the primacy of the British Government (e.g. another indyref every time a policy shift occurs). Can you think of anything? Because I honestly can't, and I'm curious to see if anyone else can.

A full federal solution, with an elected senate to replace the lords, and England divided into regions to balance things up. That would be a big help and a good start.

It's not England's fault for being 85% of the UK's population, but it's high time something was done to address the issue.

But wouldn't that still leave us in exactly the same position? I mean, America is fully federalised, but the national Govenment still determines foreign policy. If we'd been federalised a year ago, we'd still be in exactly the same position, with Scotland having voted differently and still leaving the Union against it's will.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


As always with the Scotland issue, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm aware we disagree on the whole referendum thing, but that wasn't the point of my post. I'm genuinely curious as to exactly what action or solution could be undertaken to acknowledge the fact Scotland can vote differently without either undermining democracy in Britain (e.g. prioritising Scottish opinion above British), or effectively undermining the primacy of the British Government (e.g. another indyref every time a policy shift occurs). Can you think of anything? Because I honestly can't, and I'm curious to see if anyone else can.

A full federal solution, with an elected senate to replace the lords, and England divided into regions to balance things up. That would be a big help and a good start.

It's not England's fault for being 85% of the UK's population, but it's high time something was done to address the issue.

But wouldn't that still leave us in exactly the same position? I mean, America is fully federalised, but the national Govenment still determines foreign policy. If we'd been federalised a year ago, we'd still be in exactly the same position, with Scotland having voted differently and still leaving the Union against it's will.

Not if it required a specified majority of the regions to vote for a constitutional change (like in the US where you need 2/3rds of the states to bring in a constitutional amendment, if I remember it correctly) in order for it to pass. Then it would depend on how these regions were set up as to whether it would have been possible for Leave to win 2/3rds of the regions with only 52% of the national vote.