14 June 2007

It seems the papers will print any old rubbish.

Brian Barder is raving about getting his letter published in the Independent - in it he basically puts forward a very weak argument for an English Parliament (yawn) but worse than that he insists on first-past-the-post to elect it (double yawn). It really is beyond belief that any democrat could take this seriously but then again people are idiotic enough to believe in God, so I had better repudiate it...

Brian, a few points.

No federal system in the world would advocate one parliament elected by 90% of the population of the country - so an English parliament would be just too powerful compared to the others and make a break-up of the UK even more likely.

Your arguments against PR are just laughable - to have one party - The Tories - ruling with just 35% of English votes is a travesty. It also ignores the very real regional differences - Labour get 40-50% of the vote in the North of England compared to the Tories 20-25% - in the South the percentages are almost reversed. Tory rule over all of England is likely to foster the same resentment in the North of England that led to the Celtic fringes demanding devolution. PR regional government solves the West Lothian problem and gives a voice to all the regions. You also forget that 10% of England has already voted overwhelmingly to have regional government - you conveniently want to overule the democratic choice of Londoners (then there are the dozen or so city mayors in England decided by referendum that you want to overrule).

Finally, PR has not been a disaster in Scotland, Wales etc - a couple of weeks of open negotiation is better than a quick installation of one party dictatorship that most voters opposed. Scotland and Wales have the fastest growing economies and are spending more on public services and also now have a much stronger voice in the Union. Not bad for an electoral system still going through its teething stages. This 'world will end with PR' stuff is absolute rubbish - countries that have had the longest periods of PR elected government have also had the highest growth, best funded public services, lowest inequality, best environmental legislation and highest political engagement. It is our system that is a nightmare that chops and changes policy and undermines any long-term strategy needed to improve the country's infrastructure and business environment. Check out Germany and Scandanavia and tell me their governments are not better than ours.

The spoilt ballot papers in Scotland were mostly in the first-past-the-post section not the PR bit. It was inadvisable to have different electoral systems used for different elections on the same day - the Electoral Commission warned about this - this was an administrative error and nothing to do with PR.

27 comments:

  1. "Labour get 40-50% of the vote in the North of England".
    If this is so why is there not 40-50% more Conservatives in the North of England?
    The gerrymandering has gone on for too long.
    In Scotland at the last general election, the conservatives polled approx 300.000 votes but only won one seat and lost a seat.
    New Labour polled approx 900.000 votes and won 40 seats.
    The tories should have stopped this undemocratic farce but were content as long as they were winning.If they had campaigned for change perhaps there would have never been devolution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "If this is so why is there not 40-50% more Conservatives in the North of England?"

    Anon: Don't really understand your question but our present electoral system punishes any party that cannot get a plurality within a boundary. This means parties can win almost every seat with 35%-45% like Labour do in Scotland and the North East and the Tories do in the South East. Parties can have quite high representation around 25% or higher and win no seats.

    It is not a question of redrawing the boundaries - this would have little effect on this because it is an inexact art - it is a question of changing our undemocratic dysfunctioning electoral system. Not a single Tory MP is in favour - almost half the Labour MPs are in favour - the Labour party are our only hope.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Neil, I understand that you are repeating the new labour mantra on regional government for England and you mention London. I think it is accepted that London is a special case not likely to be repeated throughout England.The north east of England rejected a regional assembly by 78% to 22% and this is why there have been no more referendums. Instead the government pushes on with its undemocratic programme for the regions. Even a BBC poll suggested that 61% of people in England are now in favour of an English parliament. So save your yawns and wake up. Regional government would only partially answer the WLQ because there is no way they will have power that is comparable to the Scottish parliament. Is it not the case that NHS and Education policy will be retained at Westminster? Also the wider English question will still be there. Gordon Brown will be shaping legislation for England and only affecting England with no accountability to voters in England. You talk about the price of the Union and yet devolution has probably has finished it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would just like to add that I am a lifelong labour voter but they have made a hash of devolution and an English parliament is the only acceptable answer that MIGHT save the union. Your insistence that London is representative of England as a whole is seriously flawed. As one of the largest cities in the world it has an understandable metropolitan attitude. As I mentioned the result in the labour north east shows this exactly. I agree that the best way for an English parliament to go is PR. You underestimate the desire of people in England to be politically recognised in Europe as England again and moreover as an England that can move forward free of the imperialist tag of 'Britain'.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The only way an English Parliament could be fair to North and South regions alike is if it is elected by PR.

    The problem with an EP is that it would represent 85% of the UK - it would just finish off the union because it's influence would be so great.

    If we want federal government in the UK - then great, I support it but no federal nation would have such a skewed system with one state so large.

    Regional government does solve the WLQ. There is no reason why health and education cannot be devolved down to the regions. If Scotland and Wales are big enough entities with 5m and 3m popn. respectively then so is the North West and South East etc.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am to understand then that it will be free for English students to attend London Universities if the London assembly votes for it? Is this labour party policy? The situation is already skewed. Surely for England NOT to be dominant in any 'union' is undemocratic seeing as as you correctly say it has 85% of the population. I think the federal system will have to be attempted or it is goodbye to the union. What will all the westminster MPs be doing then when powers equivalent to the Scottish parliament are devolved down to all the regions of England?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Very little of what I write is Labour party policy (unfortunately). I think a lot more powers can be devolved downwards - there will be some things that will have to remain at the UK level obviously.

    English students already have to pay fees in Scotland that Scots don't. Depending on which local authority you live in in England it can throw up funding anomolies. Whether this is right is down to local democracy to decide, so yes students from outside London might have to pay fees that Londoners don't if that is the decision in London. Maybe this is one example of something that should be decided at the UK level? But the principle of devolution is sound.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I also think that you mean no federal STATE would have such a skewed system with one NATION so large. This is the situation in the UK is it not? After all Scotland is a nation and also Wales but England apparently is only a collection of 'Regions'. Only of course it is not, no matter what the latest labour rhetoric may be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What you are suggesting in terms of devolution would overthrow the power of Westminster on all but reserved matters in just the same way as an English parliament - in other words there would very much less for Westminster to do. Are you seriously suggesting that Gordon Brown and his cabinet are likely to give up formulating policy on Education and Health for England? As I keep saying the result in the north east shows that we don't WANT regional assemblies we WANT a parliament for England.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The result in the North East is not so simple as you suggest.

    If you look at how the opposition focussed their campaign it was more to do with opposing another tier of government and another 'talking shop' rather than rejecting devolution.

    Are you seriously telling me local people would turn down the chance to run their own health and education?

    The North East rejected the assembly because it was not devolved enough - they did not reject the concept.

    If Gordon Brown is serious about devolving power down he will send as much power as possible down to the local level - and devolving health and education to the regions would be excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Neil Harding


    It seems the papers will print any old rubbish.

    Well if you believe your comment you must also think that what Anthony Blair spouted about the feral beast press is bollocks to right? Go on then, lets 'ave it. Let's see you admit it?
    He was talking rubbish right?

    No federal system in the world would advocate one parliament elected by 90% of the population of the country - so an English parliament would be just too powerful compared to the others and make a break-up of the UK even more likely.

    "...an English parliament would be too big for a federal Uk..." Well in that case the Westminster parliament must also be too big for the UK right now or are you stating that it's okay for a federal parliament - and that's what Westminster is now because of the scottish, NI and welsh
    gov'ts - to exist as long as the scots and welsh can have their cake and eat it to?
    So, I agree! I think we should abolish the Westminster parliament. I think it's too big for England alone. It has the majority of the MPs - far too many - and it has less work to do now thanks to Westminster
    MPs transferring powers to scotland and wales. Yes lets abolish the Westminster parliament! It must be reestablished as the true parliament of England. The hijack of the English parliament three hundred years ago (1707) must be reversed immediately. The Westminster (UK) parliament is too big for England.



    Your arguments against PR are just laughable - to have one party - The Tories - ruling with just 35% of English votes is a travesty.


    I'll tell you what's laughable. A new labour fascist party supporter
    attempting to lecture people on the tories ruling with 35% of the vote. What did new labour get in the elections? New albour dont have a mandate to rule England! Thanks for reminding me.

    It also ignores the very real regional differences

    "Regional differences"? Firstly, "The north" is not a region. I know you pro EUroland fascists. You'll say anything to try and cause division in England and between English people. So you think new labour are going to still have a say and the way to do it is by attempting to cause division between the north and the south of England! Idiots like you have been trying that for years and it still hasn't worked. Keep trying though. It adds fuel to the fire.

    Labour get 40-50% of the vote in the North of England compared to the Tories 20-25% - in the South the percentages are almost reversed.

    And where are your statistics from? New labour polls no doubt! ha! ha!


    "Tory rule over all of England is likely to foster the same resentment in the North of England that led to the Celtic fringes demanding devolution."

    You mean you'd like that to be the case. Oh i'm sure people like you will be trying to stir up divisions between the English in the future. Hmmmm, that just proves you dont care about the people of England want. The majority of English people (from north and south) want an English parliament! You don't care about that. So, you're a fascist new labour apparatchik. All you want is your own way and you'll do anything to get it. No wonder nobody in England voted for the new labour anti English fascist party now.


    PR regional government solves the West Lothian problem and gives a voice to all the regions.

    Liar! It isnt for new labour fascist party members to decide; it's for ALL the English nation!
    What regions are you waffling about? Made up EUroland regions? Well, the English people don't want them as regions. They aren't regions at all. All the EUrolanders/ fascist new labour party are trying to do is abolish places like Essex, Wessex, Northumberland and Devon in the hope that us English folk will forget about our ancient homeland. Not a chance in hell son! Especially as we are aware of what's going on.


    You also forget that 10% of England has already voted overwhelmingly to have regional government

    Ha! ha! 10% I thought you insinuated that it wasn't okay for 90% of the UK population to rule the UK via their own parliament? So why is it okay for 10% to say to hell with everyone else? You idiots trip up on your own pathetic bullshite!



    you conveniently want to overule the democratic choice of Londoners

    You and your EUrolander sycophant anti English party want
    to overule the democratic choice of Engerlanders?
    As for Londoners, how many didnt want an assembly? Answer me then?


    then there are the dozen or so city mayors in England decided by referendum that you want to overrule

    I am so glad that you bought this up. Why were all these mayors put in place by new labour fascist party? So some plum like you could come along and spout the above rubbish that's why.


    Finally, PR has not been a disaster in Scotland, Wales etc

    I am not at all interested in scotland and wales. As for etc. I dont know where that is.



    a couple of weeks of open negotiation is better than a quick installation of one party dictatorship that most voters opposed.

    "Open negotiation"?
    "One party dictatorship"?
    "...most voters opposed"?
    Youre talking about the new labour anti English fascist party aint yer son?


    Scotland and Wales have the fastest growing economies and are spending more on public services and also now have a much stronger voice in the Union.

    Spending more English tax payer monies on themselves you mean! Money stolen by Scotsman Gordon Brown!
    Must stronger voice in the union? What union would that be? There is no union i.e UK any longer.


    Check out Germany and Scandanavia and tell me their governments are not better than ours.


    "...better than ours?" What government are you referring to? There is no UK gov't now. There is a scotch govt, welsh govt, ni govt and an anti English occupation govt in westminster!

    ReplyDelete
  12. 'The result in the north east is not so simple as you suggest' Why is it then that Prescot has shelved the democratic approach? Why have there been no more Referendums?
    What you suggest about health and education is nonsense - it will never be devolved from Westminster. As I said before Labour has made a hash of devolution and this is why: they have given NATIONAL devolution to Scotland and Wales but expect REGIONAL devolution for England. This will not work. The system of devolution you suggest would work if it had been done purely on population size, in other words that the UK had been split into devolved regions of approx 10M (like London) then Scotland would have been lumped in with the north East and Wales with the West Midlands. No problem then with devolved and undevolved matters. No WLQ to worry about because things kept at Westminster would have affected all of the UK. Not so now. As you say yourself realising the regional chaos of what you propose regarding students paying for university in Kent but not London you say: 'perhaps something to be decided at UK level?' This leads right back to the WLQ that you say is solved. Why is it that Scotland and Wales should have national devolution and England not? The population of Wales and Scotland are too small to fit the regional system you suggest. Your argument only makes sense if the UK had been split as a whole along regional and not national lines. 'They did not reject the concept' Do me a favour! Only by 78% to 22% after all the propaganda of government to persuade them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. And you still haven't answered the question of what all the westminster MPs are going to be doing when all this power is devolved down to the regions -they could be cut by three quarters probably. In other words just as much of an upset as an English parliament. So why not give us the parliament that 60-70% (by at least three recent independent polls) of us want? Your belief in democracy only seems to hold if it agrees with you. If nobody in England wanted a parliament and if they showed some affection for the euro regional assemblies then I wouldn't be having this argument with you.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kevin, Anon: I agree that Labour DO NOT have a mandate to run the UK, if you take a look at previous posts you can see that. I have always supported PR.

    This BBC election site has the results from the last general election - Labour get 40-50% in Yorkshire and the North East and the Tories 25% and vice versa in the South East. We cannot pretend this means there is one England party - there most definitely is not!

    Surveys mean very little - if you word something in the right way you can get the result you want - for example - people always vote for tax cuts YET ALSO support public spending increases - contradictory positions.

    What is clear is people want more democracy - an EP sounds more democratic but there are better ways.

    Like I have already stated, people voted against a North East assembly because it was too weak (a talking shop) not because they were against devolved power.

    Finally, I agree that Labour has made a mess of devolution - but an EP is not the answer. You are right that Labour do not back devolving health and education to the regions - but it is still the right thing to do - much better than an EP that will ignore very real regional differences in England.

    ReplyDelete
  15. One final comment or two from me then Neil. I note you have ignored completely the simple right and desire of the English people to be recognised politically the way every other nation is recognised in Europe. Still coming from the left as I do this is not exactly a surprise to me. But more than this you haven't really answered the essential problem which is that even if they had a will to Labour realise that FULL devolution of health and education to the regions is a recipe for disaster. Do we really want to live in a nation where in one region there is free uni education but in another it costs a packet or in one where there are free cancer drugs that are not available in another? The existing postcode lottery is already deeply resented where it exists. Do we want to make it worse? The mounting discrepancies between Scotland and England are increasingly hated. It seems obvious that in any nation that hopes to be unified (especially one in which we all live cheek by jowl as we do in England) some vital decisions must be taken centrally. The problem with labour's settlement on devoution as I have already pointed out is that for Scottish nationalistic reasons they have tied their hands. FULL power over health and education has been devolved to Scotland but inflammatory conflicts between regions in England could not be settled by 'undevolving' because always from now on in you run into the WLQ and wider English questions. Personally I share your fear of a completely Tory controlled EP but as you say PR is a solution to this and also to the regional differences that you perceive (although personally I think this 80s split of N V S is a little out of date). I support as much power devolved to cities or counties as possible from an EP. But an EP must come first to solve the mess that Labour have made. You can't put the cart before the horse. Nice talking with you. We'll see what happens...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Your argument is for a UK parliament not an English one. As you say you resent the Scottish and Welsh devolution and would reverse that if you could but that is democracy - you may not like it - but tough.

    You have to respect what people want, you cannot say the "English" people want this or that because there is no such amorphous group. If you want to divide the UK into four parts - then the North of England has more in common with Scotland than the South East, an EP would not speak effectively for those Northern regions.

    You say North v South is exagerated but how can you ignore Labour getting 52% of the vote in the North East to the Tories 19%. For these people to be run by the Tories would be a travesty of democracy, same with most of the North or indeed Labour ruling the South East with just 24% support there.

    An EP elected by PR would address this problem, but like I say no federal system could survive with one state so influential compared to the others. The solution has to be regions with fairly equal size populations.

    "Do we really want to live in a nation where in one region there is free uni education but in another it costs a packet or in one where there are free cancer drugs that are not available in another?"

    If that is what people vote for, then that is what they want - who are we to argue.

    If people really do resent these things they will have an opportunity to vote against it in their regions - I hasten to add I support PR for the regions as well so that all viewpoints are represented.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I see Neil that none of my arguments have got through. You are completely wrong. I do not wish to reverse devolution I merely want equality for England which you in your self loathing call an 'amorphous group' (I assume you are English and not another Scot?). Your definition of democracy is laughable. A nation is not simply defined by the way they tend to vote. You WILL lose this one because the settlement on devolution sucks and more and more people can see it. Only you and your new labour colleagues who have about as much in common with the old labour party as Thatcher's Tories just can't see it. I shall not be visiting your blog again because I now realise I have not been talking to a rational man only an arrogant one.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Your definition of democracy is laughable. A nation is not simply defined by the way they tend to vote."

    Well, if it is irrational to think democracy has something to do with voting then I plead guilty.

    You want to ignore the very real differences between regions in England, I don't. I know which position respects the people of England more and it isn't an EP.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Neil Harding said...

    "...you say you resent the Scottish and Welsh devolution and would reverse that if you could but that is democracy - you may not like it - but tough."

    Who said they resent scotch and welsh devolution? Stop trying to deliberately confuse everything.
    "Reverse [devolution]"? So would GORDON BROWN! ha! ha! Youre nothing more than a new labour hypocrite son!

    Oh tough is it? Well see. I wouldnt be quite so arrogant seeing as loony new labour's days are done.



    "You have to respect what people want, you cannot say the "English" people want this or that because there is no such amorphous group."

    "Respect what people want"? That is complete and utter shite coming from you the fanatik of fascist anti English new labour. I s'pose you dont mind being a hypocrite, a liar and anti-democractic all at the same time ah? Typical new labour.
    What exacly is "this or that"? referring to you muppet?

    Oh of course there is a group called the English you buffoon!
    There is no such thing as a new labour voter in scotland though! aha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Alex salmond is my hero - he hates Blair! He hates blair and brown, blair and brown, blair and brown. He hates blair and brown the two big numpties!



    "If you want to divide the UK into four parts - then the North of England has more in common with Scotland than the South East, an EP would not speak effectively for those Northern regions"

    More in common? Such as? The Geordies told youse anti English wankers to get stuffed 80% to 20% in that fascist imposed joke of a presclot referendum DIDNT THEY? Ha! ha! They know what's going on you joker. New labour got thrashed. I still roll about when I think of that moron rodrhi morgan going and sticking his ugly nose in where it wasnt wanted. I still laugh when I think of all the pro referendum propaganda thrown at that new labour referendum lie. You got owned by the Engish geordies mate. I mean you mugs telling them they had to vote for youse. ha! ha!

    I dare say our English parliament will be in the middle of the country of England - so anti English fools cant go on about this mid south divide rubbish.
    The myth of which was invented by new labour MPs during the 70's - you know, when labour where ruining the economy! Harold Wilson - I remember him well. I remember having to sit with candles thanks to a commie labour inspired GENERAL NATIONAL STRIKE.



    You say North v South is exagerated but how can you ignore Labour getting 52% of the vote in the North East to the Tories 19%.
    For these people to be run by the Tories would be a travesty of democracy

    Supply the url where you got the statistics that allowed you to state this will you? You will if you arent making it up.
    A travesty? The party that wins the election is the one that rules the whole country. I dont think you know what travesty means son! A travesy is scotch/weslh/pinko new labour leading all the four states of the UK into a war that the people of these 4 states didnt want. That IS a travesty you mug.


    same with most of the North or indeed Labour ruling the South East with just 24% support there.


    The same as new labour ruling scotland and wales when they had 0% of the vote there to ah son? I didnt see you complain about that. Oh what, new labour have been thrown out of scotland? HA! HA!

    but like I say no federal system could survive with one state so influential compared to the others. The solution has to be regions with fairly equal size populations.


    Like I say...
    The solution HAS to be...

    Cant you anti English fascists come up with something else other than England is to big? Obviously not!
    Regions with fairly equal size populations? What hogwash.

    scotland has almost twice the poulation of wales and nearly three times the pop of NI. What are you waffling about now son? I s'pose you overheard someone talking about it in a pub ah? ha! ha!

    scotland 5,094,800
    Wales 2,958,600
    Northern Ireland 1,724,400

    And even if that wasnt so why does The solution have to be regions with fairly equal size populations? Tell me why son! Thats if you actaully have any real reasons.



    "Do we really want to live in a nation where in one region there is free uni education but in another it costs a packet or in one where there are free cancer drugs that are not available in another?"

    If that is what people vote for, then that is what they want - who are we to argue.

    People havent voted for it! The Geordies rejected it outright - 80% no to 20% yes
    The English people will never vote for such commie scheming - NEVER Th only way you anti English could even think about getting it through is by cheating, lying and deceiving!


    If people really do resent these things they will have an opportunity to vote against it in their regions - I hasten to add I support PR for the regions as well so that all viewpoints are represented.

    Oh so youre in the know ah? Ha! ha!
    I dont think so. I think youll find the English will have revolted way before there are any imposed votes on pathetic EUROLAND BOGUS REGIONS!

    "...Much better than an EP that will ignore very real regional differences in England."

    Firstly, how can you know this? You can't! Secondly, stop showing your anti english true colours you mug. We know what you are!
    We'll have our day son dont you worry about that.

    One last thing. How come you didnt reply to my last post? Cant beat anything in it I guess ah son? That says it all. Typical new labour anti engish pc anal retentive loony - if you cant beat what they say ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon. Here is the link again. I posted this on a previous comment if you bothered to look. You cannot pretend that 52% Labour, 19% Tory North East is the same as 45% Tory, 24% Labour South East. It is clear they have completely different political priorities and to force them into the same political unit will only lead to the same resentment in the North that led to the Scots and Welsh campaigning for their own parliament.

    I have replied to your comment before. Like I said, the North East rejected devolution because they were not offered enough power, not because they rejected the concept. They rejected it as 'talking shop' as you rightly persuaded them it was. If it had had the same powers as Scotland or even Wales they would no doubt have took it.

    Labour have made a mess of devolution and the situation does need to be remedied - I have never denied that. But an EP is not the answer.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Neil Harding said...


    You cannot pretend that 52% Labour, 19% Tory North East is the same as 45% Tory, 24% Labour South East.

    The North East of England had nearly 1,100,000 votes cast of which only 580,000 voted for new labour. (Of course this is only true if you dont take postal vote fraud into account! 52%? So 48% didnt vote for new labour? That's a crap result.
    "pretending"? What the hell are you going on about now? Er son, I don't think the people in the north east of England were voting for anything other than a political party. This of course has nothing to do with the issues about England which are seperate and distinct. What are you trying to insinuate? When it came to the issue of the English nation the English people of the north east of England well and truly DID NOT vote for what new labour wanted. And of course the people that told new labour to go to hell when it came to the English nation being split up are the same people who voted in the 52% 19% bollocks you're waffling about! I dont have to pretend anything the results speak for themselves. Are you trying to say that because 52% of the people of the NE voted for new labour (assuming none of the postal votes were tampered with which I think is highly unlikely) this is going to lead to them voting for an illegal useless corrupt assembly in the future? Aha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Dream on son!


    "It is clear they have completely different political priorities and to force them into the same political unit will only lead to the same resentment in the North that led to the Scots and Welsh campaigning for their own parliament."

    Oh shut up! You're an idiot! I think they were voting new labour before the presclot imposed assembly attempt you moron. So, how come they still said get stuffed to presclot and co then? Their "completely different political priorities" didnt stop them smelling a huge stinking rat and saying piss off to presclot did they? You have no argument!

    By the way, the jocks and taffs weren't resentful enough (OR PROUD ENOUGH) to say "we dont want any tainted English Barnett formula help thank you very much" were they?
    Don't give me that old crap about how proud they are either. They got what they wanted because they deceived, cheated and led their way into power and back stabbed the English! But that's another story.



    Like I said, the North East rejected devolution because they were not offered enough power, not because they rejected the concept.

    No! They rejected the horshshite of new labour sonny! Oh yeah I remember that bollocks. "Oh the people of NE England DIDNT REALLY vote 80% to 20% against a NE assembly oh no really they just voted against the establishment of one" Against the establishment of an assembly? What does that mean? They didnt even want one built that's what it means you buffoon!


    They rejected it as 'talking shop' as you rightly persuaded them it was.

    Oh so you personally have contact with all those people who voted then? Well you must because HOW THE HEL DO YOU KNOW they all rejected it as a talking shop?

    If it had had the same powers as Scotland or even Wales they would no doubt have took it.

    Oh so you know that they would have ALL "no doubt took it" If it [the assembly] had had the same powers as Scotland or even Wales!
    Firstly, you cant possibly know what the voters would have voted for! So, you're full of shite!
    Secondly, it would not have had any powers let alone those of the scottish parliament. Again, you're full of shite.


    Labour have made a mess of devolution and the situation does need to be remedied - I have never denied that. But an EP is not the answer.

    Why isnt an English parliament the answer? You havent come up with one legitimate reason why there shouldnt be one! Not one! Oh well that's pathetic anti English new labour for you!
    Youse lot might think what you say goes, but it doesn't!
    52% HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! PATHETIC.
    I note that you didnt go on about any of the other new labour English results!
    Well here are some of them.
    N WEST ENGLAND
    1,327,670 OUT OF 2,945,991

    E MIDLANDS
    785,944 OUT OF 2,015,282

    E England
    790,372 out of 2,649,813


    yorks humber
    958,006 out of 2,199,232

    SOUTH EAST of England
    951,323 out of 3,901,598 or
    24.4% ha! ha!


    w midlands
    937,418 out of 2,423,145

    New labour are done for son!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon: My point (as I am sure you know), in mentioning the different percentages in different regions, is to demonstrate how each region has very different priorities - that is why an EP is not the answer. For your information, there is NO PARTY that has ever achieved a majority of the vote in England - which is why I want PR.

    "you cant possibly know what the voters would have voted for"

    And neither do you. You speak for an England that exists in your head. Thankfully the English you talk about, the ones who disdainfully refer to Scots and Welsh as 'jocks and taffs' are firmly in the minority. If anyone is insulting the English - it is you, not me!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Neil Harding said...
    Anon: My point in mentioning the different percentages in different regions, is to demonstrate how each region has very different priorities - that is why an EP is not the answer.

    Oh for crying out loud. You base your whole premise on one election result. HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

    I could just as easily argue that because the people of NE England absolutely rejected out of hand the regional assembly concept forced upon them by the fascist new labour/EUroland party it means that their priorities are THE SAME as the people in SE England! In fact, I did argue that in the last post. They might vote for new labour or tory in differing amounts WHEN IT COMES TO PARTY POLITICS, but when it comes to England they would vote the same. Which is why prescott absolutely crapped his pathetic panties AFTER new labour got hammered in that NE assembly debacle AND CANCELLED THE OTHER TWO REFERENDA! Ha! ha! ha!They knew they would get thrashed another two times and couldnt take it. I really wish they had held a referendum in the SE of England. Of course they chose the NE because they thought them Geordies are thick as two planks. I will never forget the look on idiot prescott's face after getting trounced. Oh the joy!

    For your information, there is NO PARTY that has ever achieved a majority of the vote in England - which is why I want PR.

    You want PR because the present system isnt favouring new labour. That is why corrupt new labour want postal voting so bad to. So they can cheat. What a banana republic party new labour are.

    "you cant possibly know what the voters would have voted for"


    Ha! ha! You must be desperate. You're down to the "you said, you said" rubbish now.
    I have never said I know what people will vote for. But you stated the following:
    "The North East rejected the assembly because it was not devolved enough - they did not reject the concept."

    How do you know? You don't! It's just your pathetic biased anti English opinion that's all!


    You speak for an England that exists in your head.

    Oh now you're crying like a baby. Waaaaa! Go to the link below and see that nearly 70% want an English parliament!
    http://www.thecep.org.uk/OmEnglishParliament.pdf
    That isnt in my head, it's fact. You know, reality.

    An ICM poll commissioned by the CEP shows support for an English Parliament stands at 67%.




    Thankfully the English you talk about, the ones who disdainfully refer to Scots and Welsh as 'jocks and taffs' are firmly in the minority.

    Hmmm, the same people who refer to Englishmen and Englishwomen as sassanachs you mean? Oh yes, I am sure they're only being friendly.
    Why aint you whining about them? My great grandfather was a JOCK and my grandfather was a PADDY! I have TAFFY BOYO ISNT IT cousins! Thank Jesus, I am not related to you.

    If anyone is insulting the English - it is you, not me!

    Blah blah son, blah blah. See this welsh bloke. He's insulting new labour!

    "... an English Parliament would destroy [new Labour's] capacity to rule England. So it wrecks them rather than wrecks the Union." Ieuan Wyn Jones (Plaid Cymru), January 2007; Source

    I think i've finished with this amateur blog. You have nothing to say and even less to discuss.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anon: You still haven't explained how one political party can represent the whole of England when there is such disparity of support from region to region.

    The NO campaigners in the North East based their argument against an assembly on the basis it was just 'another talking shop' and hence a waste of money - i.e. there was not enough power devolved and hence not worth it.

    That is how I know on what basis people voted NO for. Opponents wouldn't have dared base their arguments against people having more say over what happens locally - because they would have been trounced. People do want more say over what happens in their region - Labour cocked it up by not devolving enough power. Nobody could argue with the concept of devolving as much power down the local level as possible. Like I say people support tax cuts AND better funded public services when asked in opinion polls despite these positions being totally conctradictory - it all depends on how you ask the question.

    Even if we had an EP we would still need the majority of it's powers devolved to the local level for it to be representative of England. It would either not represent large parts of England or it would end up as another useless layer of government another 'talking shop'. Give the people of Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham etc the choice of being run from their own local town or from London and see what the opinion polls say.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "AnoYou still haven't explained how one political party can represent the whole of England when there is such disparity of support from region to region."

    You haven't explained why you ignore questions put to you. Why do you?
    I am not getting involved in some childish "well, you said this and I didnt say that so that means blah blah blah" slanging match. That's for new labour.

    You still haven't explained how the new labour anti English political party can represent the people of England when it does not have a mandate to govern!
    You still have not explained how Gordon Brown can be Pm of the UK when there is such disparity of support from country to country! Infact, what country DOES support Gordon Brown? Ha! ha! NONE! NOT ONE!
    He should not be PM of anywhere.



    "The NO campaigners in the North East based their argument against an assembly on the basis it was just 'another talking shop' and hence a waste of money - i.e. there was not enough power devolved and hence not worth it."

    That was one of the things they based their arguments against the imposed assembly on; it was not the only argument.

    "That is how I know on what basis people voted NO for."

    So every single no voter from the NE of England voted against "THEIR" ASSEMBLY only because of that one reason? AHA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
    And how would you know? Your supposed arguments are ridiculous. Typical new labour fascist approach. If you're losing an argument, change the debate. If you're losing the debate make something up. If you make no sense, make something else up. Whatever you do keep talking!

    "Opponents wouldn't have dared base their arguments against people having more say over what happens locally - because they would have been trounced."

    They weren't trounced; new labour were trounced! Ha! ha! Are you sure you're a new labour apparatchik because you're not doing them any favours. Telling people that they didnt really vote
    in a certain way because it doesnt suite you is one sure way to get them to vote against you again. New labour got a bloody nose the last time. They way people like you carry on will ensure they get a stomping next time. You people will never learn.
    And why the heck would the no campaigners have told the locals that it is bad for them to have local power? For what reason?

    "People do want more say over what happens in their region - Labour cocked it up by not devolving enough power."

    Do they? Do you have any proof for this gem of yours? You are just too clever. You mean people actually want some power over their lives? Wow!! Ha! ha! AND NEW LABOUR WERENT GOING TO GIVE THE PEOPLE OF THE NE MORE POWER OVER THEIR LIVES. THE ASSEMBLY WAS GOING TO HAVE HARDLY ANY POWER WHATSOEVER. SO WHAT YOU WAFFLING ABOUT?
    When will you come out with the crapline about southern politicians telling people in the north what to do? Oh yeah, you can't say that rubbish anymore. Ha! ha!
    New labour ballsed it up because they thought they could talk a load of rubbish to the gullible English.
    (Their thoughts not mine!) They thought that the people in the NE of England would just swallow what they said. And you think they have forgotten all about that? Dream on.

    "Nobody could argue with the concept of devolving as much power down the local level as possible."

    Who is arguing against it?
    Stop making up fairy tales. Prescott and his assembly bollocks was not about "devolving as much power down to the local level as possible." It was about trying to ruin England by using divide and rule tactics. Dumb new labour got found out mate! Like they've been found out a hundred times since. The proposed presclot assembly would have hardly any powers at all.

    "Like I say people support tax cuts AND better funded public services when asked in opinion polls"


    Oh you don't say. Oh you're just so smart. Of course they do thanks to new labour anti English fascist scotsman gordon brown taxing the English to criminal levels.


    "Even if we had an EP we would still need the majority of it's powers devolved to the local level for it to be representative of England."

    And? That's called democracy. Something new labour know nothing about. You are just stating the obvious.
    And, it is something that the English AND ONLY THE ENGLISH will sort out.

    "It would either not represent large parts of England or it would end up as another useless layer of government another 'talking shop'."


    Oh for crying out loud, you just stated
    "if we had an EP we would still need the majority of it's powers devolved to the local level for it to be representative of England"

    Do you know what you're talking about?


    "Give the people of Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham etc the choice of being run from their own local town or from London and see what the opinion polls say."

    "Opinion polls"? Ha! ha!
    Oh no but new labour don't agree with referendums/polls well at least not for an exclusively English parliament. So why would they want them for local made up EUroland regions? You're a right new labour hypocrite.

    I think i've had enough of this website what with it's fairy tales arguments and fabricated facts!

    Bye! bye!

    NB I bet you were spewing about Ricky Hatton and Wayne Rooney representing England! Come on hitman, do it for Engerland my son!n:

    ReplyDelete
  26. Tory rule over all of England is likely to foster the same resentment in the North of England that led to the Celtic fringes demanding devolution.

    Is it? Why? Do you have any evidence to back this opinion?

    PR regional government solves the West Lothian problem and gives a voice to all the regions.

    No it doesn't. "The regions"? What? Like Essex and Gloucester? You cant mean those artificial EU regions? They aren't regions at all.


    You also forget that 10% of England has already voted overwhelmingly to have regional government

    Go to hell! In the North East of England, 90% voted overwhelmingly to NOT have a fabricated assembly and regional "government"! Oh what, you forgot to mention them? New labour could not care any less about the English people in the NE of England. Nobody is thick enough to believe that new labour care about people in London.





    you conveniently want to overule the democratic choice of Londoners


    That's odd because that's what new labour have done to the people of England.

    ReplyDelete
  27. At the end of the day - all regions were drawn artificially at some point - historically probably some posh bloke in the middle ages ruling over the serfs.

    At the end of the day people should have local democracy in whatever regions they want, Londoners voted to have it, the North East voted against the limited level of devolution they were offered - they wanted more power than offered not less as you suggest.

    You speak for a very small section of English people not the majority. Opinion polls suggest an English Parliament is popular - but lots of things are popular until people realise the consequences and change their mind. Maybe an English Parliament could be ok if elected the same way as a Scottish, Welsh parliaments. That way at least voters both Labour in the North and Tory in the South will be listened to as well as the other parties. One party rule in England on a minority of the vote would be a disaster. Personally it would be better to have regional assemblies - it makes more sense - but whatever.

    ReplyDelete