UK General Election - May 7th 2015

[njwes]

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.

What's going on in the pic on the left?

[ObserverIE]

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.

What's going on in the pic on the left?

They're both holding Labour "No" material. (Anne Begg is a long-term wheelchair user.)

The photographs on the NF website show McDonald and some other Nazi first standing in front of their own party banner and then moving on to stand in front of a Labour stand and apparently posing as Labour supporters.

[ChrisDR68]

Labour won a majority of seats in England in 2005.

Yep Tony Blair was the Labour Party's Heineken... reaching the parts other Labour leaders failed to reach

[rbt48]

If Scotland had become an independent country, what would the balance left in Parliament have been by party?

[Vosem]

If Scotland had become an independent country, what would the balance left in Parliament have been by party?

I believe the plan was to declare independence in 2016 had the referendum passed, so not only would it not have shifted, Scotland could still have participated in the 2015 election.

[YL]

Labour won a majority of seats in England in 2005.

Yep Tony Blair was the Labour Party's Heineken... reaching the parts other Labour leaders failed to reach

Blair had lost most of his popularity by 2005, though.  Had the Tories found a leader who didn't have the baggage from the 1990s that Howard had and was a bit more competent than IDS, Labour might even have lost their majority.

[afleitch]

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.

If there's anything the North East referendum told us, with the results in places like 'Cleveland' (and the NE Region is probably the most well defined of the lot, Yorkshire excluded) is that even if they are well defined, they will still piss some people off. The 70's re-organisation was good, but we've lost defined mets and counties into a maze of piecemeal suburban centred 'Localism'™ which is difficult to patch up.

Perhaps I have my 'bathwithashortA' hat on but when I do a little federal exercise in my head once I get the past the midlands I have no idea how you create acceptable units. Where on earth does Northants go? It's like the Powys of the Midlands.

While Scotland is comfortable with it's central belt dominance and Wales seems to get by despite being culturally split east-west and north-south, it's difficult to 'impose' regions. I read a paper once that suggested that post-war, one of the best measures of local attachment was through the power of the tellybox; the old ITV regions were surprisingly powerful. Might be a strange place to start.

[Del Tachi]

If Scotland had become an independent country, what would the balance left in Parliament have been by party?

I was wondering the same thing.  Would Labour even be capable of winning a majority without Scotland?

[politicus]

If Scotland had become an independent country, what would the balance left in Parliament have been by party?

I was wondering the same thing.  Would Labour even be capable of winning a majority without Scotland?

Of the 59 Scottish MPs elected in 2009 41 were Labour (1 has since been expelled and is an independent), 11 LibDems, 6 SNP and one Tory. So is just a matter of subtracting the Scottish seats from the current numbers.

The question about whether Labour can win on its own has been asked around a dozen times before, so search for them. There is no consensus about this, but they have done so before.

You get 591 seats (650-59) and 302 Tories (303-1), 217 Labour (257-40) and 45 LibDems (56-11) and of course no SNP.
      

[Gary J]

The Labour and Conservative Parties are both seeking to redesign the British constitution with minimal regard to principle and maximum attention to partisan advantage. It may be that some half baked plan will be adopted before the general election or during the next Parliament. Most likely the whole exercise will prove to be as futile as House of Lords reform and everybody will give up the idea of major reform for English government, for another generation.

Neither party wants to create a proper English Parliament, elected on its own by some form of proportional representation, similar to what exists in Scotland.

The Conservatives want English votes for English issues, with the representatives of English constituencies only voting on the English legislation. Possibly they may create something called an English Parliament, but really it would just be part of the UK Parliament. Official Conservative policy (as so far invented by D. Cameron) does not seem to envisage splitting the UK and English executive governments.

Party advantage - more often than not the Conservatives could hope to have concurrent UK and English majorities. If Labour have a small UK majority, the Conservatives may hope to gridlock the system by exploiting a Conservative English majority. That would leave the UK government having to accept and administer its opponents legislation, unless it advised the monarch to exercise the Royal veto over bills for the first time since the early 18th century. Parliament has no power to override a Royal veto, so this situation might lead to a bit of a constitutional crisis.

Labour (official policy) is to call for a constitutional convention (which looks like it would be wholly dominated by the Westminster politicians with little or no input by the general public). This will put off constitutional change at Westminster for years. It may be that the hope is that the issue will be less pressing by the time any report is agreed (if one ever is), so that the next government can ignore it. Labour is prepared to agree to what sounds like an English grand committee to debate English legislation, but is not willing to agree that MPs from the rest of the UK should not participate in the final decision on a bill.

Party advantage - Labour keeps some control in the UK Labour, English Tory majority situation. The government, in that situation, might not be able to pass legislation it wanted but could block legislation it did not like (without breaking the very strong convention against use of the Royal veto). So another form of deadlock.

[ChrisDR68]

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.

I read a paper once that suggested that post-war, one of the best measures of local attachment was through the power of the tellybox; the old ITV regions were surprisingly powerful. Might be a strange place to start.

I like this idea. With a little tweaking these regions could work...

[Chancellor of the Duchy of Little Lever and Darcy Lever]

There's a few mistakes in this map I can think of.  Granadaland included all of Morecambe Bay and the coast of North Wales (stand next to the main Granada transmitter on Winter Hill and you can see Anglesey on a good day).  Lincoln, famously, was split between two TV regions: uphill Lincoln was covered by Yorkshire, downhill Lincoln by Central.  There were in fact two HTV regions (HTV Wales and HTV West).

Nonetheless, not a bad starting point.

[afleitch]

Nonetheless, not a bad starting point.

It's an interesting idea. Many of the regions themselves were in many ways defined by geography; signal strength being dictated by hills etc.

In terms of 'federalising' England, The North East is fine as it is, though it might make sense to re-establish the border with Yorkshire at the Tees. Yorkshire is a defined entity; the current region but excluding North Lincs. The North West is broadly fine. Cumbria is a bit of a problem I suppose but it's links are certainly south rather than east. The West Midlands makes sense too as does the East Midlands. It's once we get south that things get problematic.

The South West actually makes sense but perhaps it would be better served by having 'the peninsula' as one area and then unite the rest with Oxford, Bucks etc into a central southern region. The Sussex's, Kent, Surrey can be the rest. Perhaps I don't care enough about the South anyway

[ChrisDR68]

Nonetheless, not a bad starting point.

It's an interesting idea. Many of the regions themselves were in many ways defined by geography; signal strength being dictated by hills etc.

In terms of 'federalising' England, The North East is fine as it is, though it might make sense to re-establish the border with Yorkshire at the Tees. Yorkshire is a defined entity; the current region but excluding North Lincs. The North West is broadly fine. Cumbria is a bit of a problem I suppose but it's links are certainly south rather than east. The West Midlands makes sense too as does the East Midlands. It's once we get south that things get problematic.

The South West actually makes sense but perhaps it would be better served by having 'the peninsula' as one area and then unite the rest with Oxford, Bucks etc into a central southern region. The Sussex's, Kent, Surrey can be the rest. Perhaps I don't care enough about the South anyway

This is probably the best map I've found for dividing England up into 8 regional assemblies. Lincolnshire has a lot in common with East Anglia (flat agricultural land, sparse population etc) so combining those areas into one regional assembly makes sense. My personal preference would be for a single Midlands region rather than East and West as shown here as people who live there define themselves as of being from the midlands.

The South Of England region could be moved west slightly so as not to make the West Country's area too large and meandering (again as shown here). The only thing this map doesn't show is London as a separate region but that devolved area already exists and is fairly obvious.

In the north it's simpler. The North West would include Cumbria (although I'm open minded about whether it could be combined with the North East to make a North Of England region) as shown here. Yorkshire is probably the easiest region as it's already a defined area as already stated.

[Cassius]

That map's okay, but needs some major modifications. For example, if we are going to have regional assemblies, then lumping London in with the rest of the South-East is a big no-no. If there are to be assemblies then the South-East should have its own, London-free assembly, whilst London should retain its present assembly. Meanwhile, that 'heart of England' place needs to be broken up; it basically looks like the leftover parts that didn't fit into any other region, which I don't think is a particularly good basis for a prospective region.

I also am of the opinion that parts of Wales (especially Monmouthshire) would actually fit better in a region also containing areas such as Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, but that's a topic for another day.

[politicus]

I also am of the opinion that parts of Wales (especially Monmouthshire) would actually fit better in a region also containing areas such as Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, but that's a topic for another day.

Perhaps, but since you have also previously said that "Wales doesn't have much of a common identity apart from sports" I still wonder, what is your basis for not considering Wales a cultural nation and a country with its own separate identity?

[Cassius]

I also am of the opinion that parts of Wales (especially Monmouthshire) would actually fit better in a region also containing areas such as Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, but that's a topic for another day.

Perhaps, but since you have also previously said that "Wales doesn't have much of a common identity apart from sports" I still wonder, what is your basis for not considering Wales a cultural nation and a country with its own separate identity?

My chief reason for doing so is that Wales, unlike Scotland, does not have a tradition of self-government and 'distinctness' from England. If you think about, for well over half a millenium, Scotland was united in more or less its present form, with its own King, its own Parliament, its own nobility and its own customs, and this distinctiveness from England lives on to the present day in a lot of ways (Scottish notes, the separate Scottish education system etcetera). Furthermore, Scotland was brought into the union on a theoretically equal basis to England.

Wales, on the other hand, is entirely different. Wales was never united (at least in its present form) as an independent state for more than a short period of time, and thus never really developed separate civic institutions to England in quite the same way as Scotland did. Furthermore, it was brought fully under English control by the 1280's (indeed parts of it had been under English control since the late 11th century), and its legal and administrative system was integrated into that of England in the 1530's. I would actually go as far as arguing that 'Wales' is as much the  creation of English officials as it is that of the people of Wales. Had they simply decided that (like Cornwall) South Wales was actually a de jure part of England in the 16th century (or later) I am willing to bet money that people would have no problem with that now.

If we look at nationalism in Wales, it is very firmly bound up with the cause of promoting the Welsh language, as opposed to nationalism in Scotland, which takes on a far more 'civic' flavour. This why Plaid Cymru finds it very difficult to reach out beyond its North-Western and Western base of Welsh-Speakers (it has done so in some places, but only with difficulty). Welsh nationalism simply does not carry very much weight in areas like Monmouthshire, or Cardiff, or the Vale, because these places are, in a lot of ways, very culturally distinct from, say, Gwynedd. Of course, there is a lot of cultural difference between certain areas of Scotland, but that seems to be bridgeable by this kind of 'civic pride' which is not really much in evidence in Wales.

I personally think that some areas of Wales do have a genuinely separate cultural (I'm less sure politically) identity to England; however, I'm equally sure that for much of Wales, the chief difference with England is that they support the Welsh Rugby team (and, in places such as the Welsh valleys, have strong disagreements over the direction of government policy, but then, that is also true for some parts of England).

Basically, Wales has very little in the way of a separate civic identity to England, and even its clearly distinct cultural identity is only strong in a few areas. Thus, I do not consider much of Wales to be truly distinguishable as a nation from England.

[politicus]

Okay, I am quite familiar the history of Wales, but its just my impression that the Welsh in general very much identify with being Welsh and have a feeling of being distinct from England and one separate country despite the linguistic divide.

[Cassius]

Okay, I am quite familiar the history of Wales, but its just my impression that the Welsh in general very much identify with being Welsh and have a feeling of being distinct from England and one separate country despite the linguistic divide.

I think that is true to some extent, but I'm not sure that its very different from the way that people from Yorkshire feel distinct from those who live in Lancashire, or how northerners feel distinct from southerners in England. And again, I do think a lot of Welsh national pride is predicated on sport (and by sport I mean Rugby, since that's the only team sport in which Wales actually do well).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Nonetheless, not a bad starting point.

It's an interesting idea. Many of the regions themselves were in many ways defined by geography; signal strength being dictated by hills etc.

In terms of 'federalising' England, The North East is fine as it is, though it might make sense to re-establish the border with Yorkshire at the Tees. Yorkshire is a defined entity; the current region but excluding North Lincs. The North West is broadly fine. Cumbria is a bit of a problem I suppose but it's links are certainly south rather than east. The West Midlands makes sense too as does the East Midlands. It's once we get south that things get problematic.

The South West actually makes sense but perhaps it would be better served by having 'the peninsula' as one area and then unite the rest with Oxford, Bucks etc into a central southern region. The Sussex's, Kent, Surrey can be the rest. Perhaps I don't care enough about the South anyway

This is probably the best map I've found for dividing England up into 8 regional assemblies. Lincolnshire has a lot in common with East Anglia (flat agricultural land, sparse population etc) so combining those areas into one regional assembly makes sense. My personal preference would be for a single Midlands region rather than East and West as shown here as people who live there define themselves as of being from the midlands.

The South Of England region could be moved west slightly so as not to make the West Country's area too large and meandering (again as shown here). The only thing this map doesn't show is London as a separate region but that devolved area already exists and is fairly obvious.

In the north it's simpler. The North West would include Cumbria (although I'm open minded about whether it could be combined with the North East to make a North Of England region) as shown here. Yorkshire is probably the easiest region as it's already a defined area as already stated.

I particularly enjoy the North West annexing the Isle of Man.

Apart from that it seems OK, apart from a few issues:

Would Cornwall receive an Assembly? I imagine that could be a persistent demand.
If London secedes from that SE region, what happens to that section of Herfordshire that would be cut-off from the rest of the region? (Incidentally, I have seen some ideas for an expanded Greater London that include the entire conurbation.
They need real names (Would the mediaeval names suffice?)
 

[politicus]

Northhumbria, Mercia and Wessex ftw.

(I guess Essex, Sussex and Kent are too small)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Northhumbria, Mercia and Wessex ftw.

(I guess Essex, Sussex and Kent are too small)

You bet!

I suppose you could make a Home Counties Assembly with a London shaped hole in the middle (like the Brandenburg/Berlin situation is arranged) to "fix" the SE situation.

[ChrisDR68]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for names here are my thoughts:

North East (based in Durham due to the Newcastle - Sunderland rivalry)
North West (based in Warrington due to the Liverpool - Manchester rivalry)
Yorkshire (based in York)
Midlands (based in Birmingham)
Eastern England (based in somewhere like Cambridge due to it's central location within the region)
Greater London (based in the Gherkin lol)
South East (based in Eastbourne due to the Portsmouth - Southampton rivalry)
South West (based in possibly Yeovil due to it's central location)

You could change South East to Home Counties and South West to the West Country. I'm open minded about both.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah I see things that need to be addressed at some point. But first things first:

North East (based in Durham due to the Newcastle - Sunderland rivalry)

Durham City is also the historical sort-of capital of the region (i.e back when County Durham - when then included random pockets in northern Northumberland - was effectively a semi-independent state under the Prince Bishops) and also has the benefit of not being too far away from Teesside.

[Vega]

It would be great if the Isle of Mann would join up with England, too bad it won't happen. I do like that map other wise, though.