UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[You kip if you want to...]

Liberal Democrats release pre-manifesto. It includes:

* four weeks of paternity leave
* the mansion tax on houses over £2,000,000
* An aim to balance budget by 2017/18.
* higher Capital Gains taxes
* no subsidised TV license or fuel allowances for better-off elderly
* cheaper bus travel for young people
* decriminalisation of drugs, Portugal style and possibly an endorsement of cannabis legalisation
* rule out all airport/runway expansions or openings in London
* phasing out coal power by 2050
* abolishing PCC's
* STV for local elections
* Voting age at 16

Who knows how much will get through in the event of a coalition? (my wager is that the drugs and the airport policies would be hardest to implement; as well as the various tax rises if it's another blue-yellow coalition).

Great for us all to have a list of the promises they'll break in the next parliament.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Remember when people were talking earlier this thread about Bercow's seat? Well, it looks like UKIP are standing again in Buckingham.

For people outside the UK, Bercow is disliked by a lot of people. Some of it is from the Tory right, who think he is a turncoat (he often flirted with defecting as a backbencher) and can't "control" his wife (ew) ; but he has been involved with both the expenses scandal (his formidable dolphin-suited challenger in 2010 was named "Flipper" in homage to his second-home "flipping") and a current kerfuffle about the installation of the Commons Clerk, which he has well and truly bungled.

Anyway, he's unpopular; UKIP will probably be his only real challenger (no dolphins next year, I guess). Probably a Speaker hold- a defeated Speaker is, as far as I know, unprecedented -but you never know. I can't imagine many Tories will rush in to defend Bercow anyway.

[Gary J]

I have identified one Speaker defeated at the polls since the Union. Sir Richard Onslow (a Whig politician who had represented Surrey since 1689) was defeated in the 1710 general election. He was Speaker from 1708-1710. Speaker's, in that period, were partisan figures who were by no means certain of retaining the chair in a new Parliament but it was still an unusual event for one to lose an election.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As the election had been a Tory triumph, Onslow had no hope of being re-elected Speaker.

[EPG]

Of course, the Tory party began to vanish forever a few years after that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bercow is unpopular with many of his former colleagues on the Conservative benches, but with who else, exactly? He was supposed to be 'unpopular' in his constituency in 2010 too and clearly wasn't. I think most people who care about such things - even if they don't like him - regard him as an unusually effective Speaker.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think he's a decent speaker myself - much better than Martin - but he didn't get a fantastic result in 2010 running against jokes (as UKIP were in that election).

HS2 is another factor. It runs straight through the constituency, and Bercow - though he opposes HS2 - is unable to vote against it due to his status.

The challenge'll probably go nowhere (this present scandal seems stupid to be honest ), but still might be fun to watch on election night.

(In 2013, these were the council results in the relevant wards:

Con         38.95
UKIP        25.21
LibDem    14.60
Lab          10.89
Ind           7.72
Green       2.63

)

[Gary J]

The problem of England continues to be intractable. Creating an English Parliament leads to the risk that the First Minister of England would do to the Prime Minister of the UK what Boris Yeltsin did to Mikhail Gorbachev.  Federal type states do not work very well when one member of the Federation is stronger than all the others combined.

The attempt to square the circle by dividing England into regions did not work. The Labour government (as represented by John Prescott) promoted a devolution revolution for North East England. The people of that region rejected the idea. If an area like the North East did not approve a Regional Assembly, no part of England would.

However, if Scotland remains in the UK and gets the promised devo max, perhaps the UK constitution will have to be changed in quite a major way. The politicians may have to bite the bullet and risk an English Parliament. The UK Parliament could be left as a federal or quasi federal legislature with quite restricted powers compared to the national parliaments and assemblies.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I can imagine Northern regions might be more likely to break away under the Tory led coalition to escape the policies of the South East.

In fact a domino of devolutions would probably break out if one or two regions took the plunge for federalisation. The issue is making non-artificial regions with actual real names (none of this "South-East England" crap); and dealing with oddities (would Cornwall just be a tiny state or could they deal with being linked to Devon/Somerset/Avon/Dorset?).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some form of regional government makes sense, but it's fairly clear that the regions should not be the current official ones (which are essentially statistical entities). Possibly it would make sense to dust off the Redcliffe-Maud report and then adjust accordingly.

Proposed 'Provinces' of England:



And the proposed local authorities that went with them:



Also proposed were additional authorities for dealing with the particular problems of large metropolitan areas. Yes, it was basically what happens when you let geography geeks design a local government system. The Heath government dropped it like a hot potato, of course.

An alternative would be to accept popular enthusiasm for the traditional counties and to work out small regions based on combinations of these, adjusted for the reality of modern conurbations, etc.

[YL]

Remember when people were talking earlier this thread about Bercow's seat? Well, it looks like UKIP are standing again in Buckingham.

For people outside the UK, Bercow is disliked by a lot of people. Some of it is from the Tory right, who think he is a turncoat (he often flirted with defecting as a backbencher) and can't "control" his wife (ew) ; but he has been involved with both the expenses scandal (his formidable dolphin-suited challenger in 2010 was named "Flipper" in homage to his second-home "flipping") and a current kerfuffle about the installation of the Commons Clerk, which he has well and truly bungled.

Anyway, he's unpopular; UKIP will probably be his only real challenger (no dolphins next year, I guess). Probably a Speaker hold- a defeated Speaker is, as far as I know, unprecedented -but you never know. I can't imagine many Tories will rush in to defend Bercow anyway.

Bercow was once very much part of the Tory right: when he was a student he was secretary of the "Immigration and Repatriation Committee" of the Monday Club.  He was already unpopular with his own party when he was elected Speaker; supposedly he got very little support from other Tories and was largely elected on Labour and Lib Dem votes.  (It was a secret ballot, so we don't know for sure what happened.)

I don't think Buckingham (basically a prosperous rural area with no coastline) fits the UKIP profile very well.  They did have some success in the county council elections in Buckinghamshire, presumably helped by the HS2 issue, but it was mostly further south, in the Aylesbury constituency (which UKIP carried, and is on that reported target list).

[EPG]

The problem of England continues to be intractable. Creating an English Parliament leads to the risk that the First Minister of England would do to the Prime Minister of the UK what Boris Yeltsin did to Mikhail Gorbachev.  Federal type states do not work very well when one member of the Federation is stronger than all the others combined.

I wonder if this is really true. One can't precisely compare a dying socialist dictatorship to the UK. Perhaps it would weaken the UK federal government, but the same is true in countries with much more federal subject parity like Belgium.

[You kip if you want to...]

The problem of England continues to be intractable. Creating an English Parliament leads to the risk that the First Minister of England would do to the Prime Minister of the UK what Boris Yeltsin did to Mikhail Gorbachev.  Federal type states do not work very well when one member of the Federation is stronger than all the others combined.

I wonder if this is really true. One can't precisely compare a dying socialist dictatorship to the UK. Perhaps it would weaken the UK federal government, but the same is true in countries with much more federal subject parity like Belgium.

I'd imagine a more regional solution would be more viable, but a lot depends on the government elected in May. I'd imagine if Scotland votes Yes, 5 more years of the Tories would lead to some very loud shouts for northern devolution. Of course, Labour have been making some soundings on devolution to local areas, but the shape that'd take is still very vague.

[EPG]

Fiscal federalism pays best for prosperous regions. Northern voters may not like having Conservative governments, but that's presumably because they get less income redistributed from London. Devolution would only let them tap the rich bits of Tyneside for a bit more.

[YL]

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson selected as Tory candidate for Uxbridge & South Ruislip.

[politicus]

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson selected as Tory candidate for Uxbridge & South Ruislip.

I suppose its mandatory to be a Tory with a name like that.

[Simfan34]

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson selected as Tory candidate for Uxbridge & South Ruislip.

I looked the name up. I suppose I need to hand in some sort of badge now.

[YL]

There may still be nearly eight months to polling day, but I saw my first garden poster (a Labour one).

[RodPresident]

Can backlash after Yes victory give SNP a great victory in GE2015 enough to make them 3rd party in Commons and king-maker? Or Scottish still vote for Labour after all?

[You kip if you want to...]

Can backlash after Yes victory give SNP a great victory in GE2015 enough to make them 3rd party in Commons and king-maker? Or Scottish still vote for Labour after all?

Hard to tell, but I'd expect a big swing to the SNP because voters would see them as those best able to get Scotland a good deal in negotiations.

Also, if they're the kingmakers, they can basically demand whatever they want and pull the plug if the government tries to say no.

[ChrisDR68]

English devolution or only English MP's voting on English only issues is a massive trap for the Labour party.

Apart from exceptional elections like 1997 and 2001 the Tories generally have a majority of MP's in England.

If Labour has a majority in the House Of Commons in the future but only with the help of their Scottish MP's then they are likely to find passing laws for England largely unworkable.

On the other hand denying devolution for England at Westminister would likely be very unpopular with English voters.

How will they square the circle?

[Colbert]

Some form of regional government makes sense, but it's fairly clear that the regions should not be the current official ones (which are essentially statistical entities). Possibly it would make sense to dust off the Redcliffe-Maud report and then adjust accordingly.

Proposed 'Provinces' of England:



And the proposed local authorities that went with them:

+

what are there name ? I guess northumberland, yorkshire, lancashire, east anglia, west midland, east midland and cornwall, but for the south-east ?


Why not essex ? Or something remembering old saxonies kingdoms ?

[DL]

English devolution or only English MP's voting on English only issues is a massive trap for the Labour party.

Apart from exceptional elections like 1997 and 2001 the Tories generally have a majority of MP's in England.

Actually there have only ever been two elections where the Tories won in England/Wales but lost the election - the two elections of 1974.

According to a big survey by YouGov only 5% of voters say that "constitutional issues" are of any importance to them in the upcoming election - so it may be a case where the Tories take a popular position on an issue no one cares about.

[Cassius]

English devolution or only English MP's voting on English only issues is a massive trap for the Labour party.

Apart from exceptional elections like 1997 and 2001 the Tories generally have a majority of MP's in England.

Actually there have only ever been two elections where the Tories won in England/Wales but lost the election - the two elections of 1974.

According to a big survey by YouGov only 5% of voters say that "constitutional issues" are of any importance to them in the upcoming election - so it may be a case where the Tories take a popular position on an issue no one cares about.

When its framed as 'constitutional issues', yeah, many people would hear that and think 'dull'. However, frame it as 'English votes for English laws (whether its through Parliament or through regional assemblies) and I suspect it might generate a greater amount of enthusiasm (at least for some).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Labour won a majority of seats in England in 2005.

[afleitch]

The big problem for Labour in Scotland is that the aftermath of the referendum might be a gift that keeps on giving

Such as this charming photo of Dame Anne Begg, MP for Aberdeen South and Dave MacDonald leader of the Scottish wing of the National Front.