Is Cameron onto a winner playing the English card?
October 29th, 2007
How should Labour respond to the Rifkind plan?
Reproduced above is part of the coverage that the Daily Mail is giving this morning to the plans that are emerging over what the Tories will do about Scottish devolution and the so called “West Lothian Question”.
Clearly the growing disparity between public services north and south of the border, which is being skilfully exploited by Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, is not going to go away. Free prescriptions, free home care for elderly and the absence of university tuition fees add up to an agenda that looks potentially problematical for Brown.
Labour’s current strategy of accusing the Tories “playing fast and loose” with the constitution, the words used by Cabinet Minister, Ruth Kelly yesterday, doesn’t quite resonate.
The problem for Brown is that if steps were taken to adjust the Barnett formula under which more public money is spent per head in Scotland than England there would be the danger of Labour seat losses to the SNP.
The normal Brown strategy for dealing with Tory plans that appear popular is to close them down like with the IHT proposals earlier in the month. There’s much less scope for that with Scotland.
So this is one that is going to run and run and there will be more Daily Mail headlines.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
This whole situation is becoming increasingly surreal. All the talk of North Sea Oil is bollocks. The City of London (and its taxes) is paying for the Scots to live beyond their means.
It’s time to give Scotland greater fiscal autonomy - Salmond and the rest of the snake oil salesmen would be forced to explain some home truths.
Even most Scots don’t think the status quo, whereby their MPs decide on English policies, is fair. And the English while not being up in arms about it are getting a bit annoyed about the basic injustice of it all.
Cameron is onto a winner here.
Labour’s playing “fast and loose” with the constitution - regional Government without providing answers to the inherent “WLQ” contradictions this creates - has got us into this position. For Labour, we each live in either Scotland, Wales - or Great Britain. The concept of devolution for England already resonates and I don’t believe it will not go away for the rest of this Parliament.
Who makes what proposals in their manifesto will be fascinating - although I guess the people who have first shot at getting heard with a coherent reaction will be Huhne and Clegg. Do they have differing positions?
Scotland and England are notions that should have been eliminated centuries ago, they haven’t been and they’re not. Its always been more a union of a marriage, than a permanent symbiosis. Its time for an amicable divorce and us to go our separate ways.
2. who cares what lib dems think and say. they have no impact on anything.
the most shocking statistic in the above is the number of Conservative MPs in England versus Labour, where more people voted Conservative than Labour.
If cameron plays scottish politics, he has nothing to lose, and much to gain - on both sides of the border.
brown has everything to lose. what’s happened to dacre’s craven support of his mate Gordon?
The Romans administered our island as two separate entities. Cameron might profitably advocate the repair of the wall!
Watch for differences between the English and Scottish editions of the newspapers.
So two substantial issues here: the Barnett Formula and English Votes on English Matters.
EVoEM is probably not very significant either way. As Liberal Democrats and Eurosceptics have found over the years, it’s very hard to get most British voters excited over the constitution. In practical terms, if the Tories win a UK-wide election they could enact EVoEM, but it wouldn’t make any difference since they’d be in power anyway (except possibly in helping the government shove through unpopular legislation against a Tory back-bench revolt, which would probably not leave people very enamoured of the arrangement.) And if Labour won a UK-wide election after that, presumably they’d just reverse EVoEM.
The Barnett Formula stuff is a bit more interesting; The Tories could, if they chose, promise tax cuts and/or spending increases in England at the expense of spending Scotland.
Looking at Wikipedia, it appears that Northern Ireland is doing even better out of the Barnett Formula than Scotland, and Wales is doing OK as well:
Per-capita:
* England £5,940
* Scotland £7,346
* Wales £6,901
* Northern Ireland £7,945
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Formula
Have the Tories said they’d do anything about this disparity? Politically, while it may be worth their while to effectively give up on Scotland in the hope of winning a few more seats in England, the same isn’t necessarily true of Wales. (Is it?) And Cameron may need the support of Northern Irish parties in a hung parliament.
Could the Conservatives come up with a formula that would reduce the subsidy to Scotland while continuing to subsidize Wales and Northern Ireland, or would that look too opportunistic?
Mike has not really touched on Scottish politics recently, which is hardly surprising given the lack of voting intention polls since May.
But I wonder if any other pb.ers noticed this very interesting (and amusingly bitter) insight into internal Labout machinations a few weeks ago, the day after Wee Gogsy bottled the autumn general election:
“However, Cabinet colleagues backed Brown last night. Secretary of State for Scotland Des Browne said: “The Prime Minister has made the right decision in the long term interest of Scotland. The only person in Scotland who was scared of an election was Alex Salmond. His own SNP polling was showing Labour with a 15 point lead and newspaper polling showing that half of all Scots who were going to vote backed Labour.”"
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1601262007
We all know who was “running scared”, and it was not Mr Salmond…
Now, as far as I am aware, there is only one published opinion poll of Scottish Westminster voting intention since the Scottish general election in May. That was the YouGov/Sunday Times poll in August (% change since GE 2005):
1. Lab 40% (+1%)
2. SNP 31% (+13%)
3. Con 14% (-2%)
4. LD 11% (-12%)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2284286.ece
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/scottish.pdf
Now, if Des Browne is inadvertently divulging data from internal Labour Party polling, then the SNP have made even further advances since August (and the Tory decline and LD collapse even worse).
If “half of all Scots” were going to vote Labour, and the SNP were 15 points behind, then that must mean that the SNP are on about 35%.
Or… on the other hand… what “newspaper polling” was Mr Browne referring to (there’s been none), and how did a Labour minister get his hands on internal “SNP polling”? Or is Des Browne just a big fat liar?
Either way, that kind of venom, combined with made-up statistics, just shows what a panic the Labourite high heid yins are in.
(Two postscripts: when will a politician next make a decision based on “the long term interest of England”. And why has Anthony Wells not got the findings of that YouGov poll up on his website?)
from my perspective, nothing can possibly go wrong from releasing Scotland from the Union. Their an economic burden which England supports, Labors majority will take another hit, and the Conservatives have nothing to lose. It will be interesting watching an independent Scotland collapse on the 6 o’clock news.
Mike - “Is Cameron onto a winner playing the English card?”
Probably, if the findings of straw polls by the BBC and Sky News are any indication at all of public sentiment:
- Sky News: “Should Scottish MPs get a vote on English matters?” - result so far: 85% “No”
- BBC News - Have Your Say: “Should England be alone in deciding English matters?” - result: 86% “Yes”
I heard that Harriet Harman made an insightful, very “off-message” comment about the importance of Scottish oil to the funding of English public services (… on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show?). Was anybody watching? What exactly did she say?
Here is how one supporter of English self-government puts it:
“Alex Salmond… said: “I am a great believer in an English parliament, and you know a lot of folk say that England couldn’t manage on its own. I decry that entirely. I’ve got every confidence in the people of England to be fully self-governing. I think they’ll make a fantastic job of it and we’ll be the best of neighbours and the best of friends.”"
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1723192007#comments
What defines English matters - after all both the tution fees and foundation hospital arguments were not pure English issues as the English/Welsh policy on fees means that Scottish students in England and English students in Scotland pay fees and on the foundation hospitals the pure policy version promoted by T Blair would have reduced the amount comeing to Scotland in the Barent formula and therefore the scope for the Scottish Executive to spend on conventional hospitals in Scotland.
10 All MPs get a vote on public expenditure decisions which affect Barnett through Budget debates and CSR. As for your point on English/Welsh policy on fees that cuts both ways - English students intending to study in Scotland are affected by Scots legislation so you appear to be arguing devolution should be reversed.
What will happen when an English visitor pops into a Boots pharmacy in Edinburgh with a prescription? Will the charge be levied or not?
I can see lots of scope for Daily Mail stories for years to come.
I know Cammy doesn’t have much to loose in Scotland, but what about Wales? Why would you vote Tory in Wales for a 2nd class MP? Or would we have more say in this English votes thing because the NA has less powers than the Assembly?
This is a classic example where the politics of the heart (the narrative) will win out over the politics of the head (the facts).
No one will care about the fact that the disparities between the English regions are as nearly as great as the disparities between the nations - for example, no Londoner loses out because of Barnett, whilst those living in the East of England are seriously taken for a ride…
No one will care (until it’s too late) that EVoEM is neither simple nor straightforward to put into practice. (See last night’s thread.)
For starters, either Cameron wins an overall majority in the UK Parliament or else he doesn’t. If he does, why bother (the narrative will have moved on), and if he doesn’t, how’s he going to get it through (the facts get in the way)? Should he promise a referendum?
How is EVoEM to be implemented in the Lords? Who is to decide an “English Matter”? The government of the day? The Speaker? The Judicial Committee of the House of Lords? The European Court (God Save the Queen!)?
This will break up the Union, if only because the Scots will look around for a way to replace the lost Barnett money, and the EU will slap on the eye-liner and the rouge and leer, “join the Euro and we’ll give you the dosh, Jock!”
I favour the ‘pragmatic’ British
solution that does not formally tackle the problem itself, but which significantly mitigates its impact. And that is to further reduce the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster, say by a further 25%, but leave their voting rights intact. This was the case with Northern Ireland under the old Stormont Parliament
10. A Voice from Lothian
Exactly!
This Malcolm Rifkind EVoEL proposal is a total nightmare waiting to happen. Rifkind is the archetypal ‘duffer’, and if English Tories have got any common sense whatsoever they will sideline and ignore this multiple election loser, who presided over the utter annihilation of the once-proud Scottish Tory party (ably assisted by Michael Forsyth).
The only way to save the Union is through true, symmetrical federalism, with England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each having an autonomous legislature and government; and a very slim UK legislature and government for a tiny range of centralised issues (primarily defence). Fortunately, this will never happen, for many reasons, not least of which is the near-intractable problem of disentangling the combined English and Welsh legal system. (Note: there is very rarely such a thing as an “English law”.)
[15] Oh, you don’t mind Barnett, then, John :).
17 - Oh, Mike, that’s all far too complex for an ageing political dilettante, but chances are that I probably don’t
16. Isn’t Scottish nationalism a monumental con-trick? ‘A nation once again’ it blusters, and then asserts this proud nationhood by playing silly games with prescription charges etc….
…while fully supporting a European agenda that will transfer all the real powers a nation has - over defence, foreign policy, immigration and even control of natural resources - to a foreign body.
[18]
It is a very smart political move by the Conservatives as it speaks to a basic unfairness in the system. One of the basic tenets of Britishness is a sense of fairness.
The issue needs at least 12 months of publicity before it can become a factor at the GE as the awreness level in England is still relatively low. With the delay in the GE, Brown has given the Conservatives the time for this issue to become important.
The devolution of Wales and Scotland was a fairly typical Labour action that addressed the call of a minority in the UK without thinking through the consequences and was then implemented in ways that created further inequities.
At the very least the Scottish MPs should have been reduced below 40 and Wales below 20. That did not happen so the WLQ became the festering sore that it is.
The stability of the UK as a single unit ended when devolution was started.
I suspect that Cameron’s sub-text will be to develop the theme he began in last week’s PMQs and remind us that Brown is a Scot. With the likes of John Reid and Menzies Campbell out of the equation I suspect that Brown’s Scottishness will become more apparent. The fact that Cameron also drew attention to Douglas Alexander last Wednesday suggests to me that there is definitely a strategy afoot.
19. henri
I think that you will find that Gordon Brown’s barf-inducing British nationalism campaign is the most humongous “monumental con-trick” in town at the moment.
http://thecep.org.uk/news/?p=175
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_mafia
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/scotland/article431132.ece
16 Agree the federal solution and therefore a full English Parliament.However under first past the post voting system there would likely be a perpetual tory majoritry.Hence this would have to go hand in hand with voting reform as happened in Scotland and Wales.
RogerH
[24] England hasn’t elected a majority of Tory MPs since 1992.
16 - Given my Tory status, it is uncomfortable to find myself agreeing with Stuart about a federal solution but I think it is a clear way out of this mess. What it would need though would be an acknowledgment from Westminster that it is no longer the primary legislative body for Scotland.
The Scotland Act explicitly states “[the Scotland Act] does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.” Given this, an EVoEL proposal needs to take into account the fact that while Scottish MPs will no longer be able to vote on English matters, English MPs will nevertheless retain the right to vote on Scottish matters and overrule the Scottish Parliament if they were minded to do so.
An ill thought through proposal for EVoEL stands every chance of simply shifting a constitutional imbalance elsewhere, not curing it.
BTW-is there some lazy journalism on behalf of the Daily Mail? Tory MPs per them are 189+1+3 (Wales)=193. Where have the other 5 gone?
Yes, Cam’s right and it’s a great idea.
Stuart
Calm down. As far as I can see we are further away from independence than ever. The Nats are riding relatively high in the polls with populist policies funded by the English taxpayer - the result no surge what so ever for independence.
It’s more “how should Cameron respond to the Rifkind plan”.
Cam has floated the idea but as far as I can see he hasn’t actually endorsed it. But predictably, slimy Salmond thinks that it’s wonderful. A move for English self-government, unless it’s planned properly, will boost the SNP and could eventually lead to a break-up of the Union. But is that what Cam really wants? Doesn’t the Conservative Party believe in the Union any longer? I guess that Cam will continue to prevaricate and try to have it both ways.
Here’s an alternative which can’t be attacked as “creating two classez of MPs” (which criticism by Labour is inaccurate anyway):
The only change to the status quo is that if issues that may fall to the devolved executives have differing results in the UK as a whole and the devolved administration, it is examined to see if the votes of the Westminster MPs from the devolved areas were critical. If they were, the result overrides the devolved executive’s decisions, and in effect, that area’s Westminster MPs will have overriden the devolved Parliament.
If the Westminster MPs from those areas voluntarily abstain on such issues, there will be no problems. If, however, they end up imposing a solution on their constituents that are the reverse of their constituents desires, they and their parties will reap the results in the next elections.
Now that is democratic accountability.
If Scots Labour MPs want devolution to work, it would then be up to them. If they played fast and loose by voting on matters that are devolved to Edinburgh, they’d risk taking away the devolved power - and that wouldn’t go down too well Noth of the Border.
Clearly something will have to be done about this situation. Labour’s position of denying England its own say in its own affairs, with at the same time (a) public spending being higher in the devolved administrations and (b) the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament currently seeking to extend their powers, is nonsensical.
Nevertheless, the Tory plans are an interim step at best.
What is need is a consistent template of powers for all devolved administrations (rather than the range of powers that exist at the moment), and a body (or bodies) for England that legislates on the same basis as the others.
I suppose that ageing sentimentalists like me will just have to get used to the idea that the Union is dying.
Without commenting on the pros and cons of the Conservative’s solution to WLQ, it is clear that this will play well with the English electorate. The Conservatives will destroy their limited chances in Scotland & Wales, but will more than make up for it in English seats. BUY CON.
29. His Eminence
Jolly decent of the English taxpayer to fund popular policies for Scots.
But, the funny thing is, I just cannot seem to remember anybody ever asking those kindly English taxpayers if they were willing to show such benevolence to their impoverished next door neighbours. Ah well, I’m sure such a consultation must have taken place at some point… I must have just missed the news that day.
Gordon Brown will have to walk on ice over the Barnett Formula. If he says everything is fine, the voters will go mental. If he says it has to change, the SNP could really cause him serious grief. Cameron has started the debate at just the right time.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/let-them-have-their-oil-mr-cameron/
Why are people attached to the union? I would have thought that the evidence is generally in favour of smaller political units being more successful.
I haven’t a clue whether Scotland would be better off independent, but four nearby and very roughly comparable states (both in and out of the EU) seem to work well enough.
This technical approach does not feel like a vote winner. People either vote for altuistic reasons, or for selfish reasons. The former doesn’t apply, and its too remote for the latter.
This issue (like the EU) is too arcane to have any other than the most marginal effect. For most, GB is judged on what he looks like, and how well is seen to be doing. That he is jowly matters more than his Scottishness.
O/T King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia says the UK was warned ahead of the 07/07/05 terrorist attacks and that “no action was taken”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7066867.stm
Stuart
Your right (its called the Barnett formula by the way)the English taxpayer was never asked. Thats why Scottish taxpayers like me love the Union in increasing numbers.
To answer the question posed by the thread,IMHO David Cameron is not onto a winner.
This seems to be yet another desperate attempt by the leader of the most inneffectual opposition this country has had for many years.
Unless a new leader is installed the conservatives will remain the permanent party of oppostion.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home(aka Baillie Vass) will have the dubious distinction of being the last Old Etonian Prime Minister of this once great country of ours.
29 - It is often mentioned that polls show that greater number of Scots say they think independence will happen compared to those who actually want it to happen. It is rarely mentioned that there is a fairly simple explanation for this possible contradiction - that the Scots expect the English to take the decision unilaterally, whether directly or indirectly (by taking away Scottish ‘advantages’ in the Union.
39. Warned of what? It sounds like a very clumsy intervention.
37 - “Why are people attached to the union? I would have thought that the evidence is generally in favour of smaller political units being more successful.”
I remember having a conversation with a friend in Edinburgh last April in which he said something along the lines of “Scotland will do whatever it is in her interests to do.”
A small nation historically needed to be on the inside of a more powerful economic body in order to prosper and the Union provided such an arrangement in Scotland’s case in the last three centuries. The SNP would probably argue that this arrangement is now obsolete and that the EU is where the alliances should be made - and why do you need to be bound to England to do that?
Not sure if that thought is irrelevant or arguing for or against the point at 37 though!
38 - I quite like Gordon’s jowls actually!
Cameron may be onto a short-term winner, but I believe he is taking choice away from Tory supporters in Scotland and Wales. I know there are not may in Scotland, but he really could be jeopardising gains in Wales (e.g.Vale of Glamorgan). As I have said, why vote for a party that would effectively demote your new MP?
I’m thinking aloud here, but instead of EVFEL, why not just have a uniform UK-wide per head level of spending for all 4 home nations (perhaps based on what England gets now) and allow the 3 devolved assemblies to have further local tax raising powers to fund their profligacy, if that’s what they want? Let’s see if the Scots really do want a Soviet-style economy if they have to pay through the nose for it compared to the English. How would Salmond deal with that?
I imagine that finding most English support independence for Scotland takes a lot of the fun out of voting SNP.
If the Scots ever get Independence it won’t come from the SNP instead it will come from the English who increaseing sick of betting treated as second class citizens will tell the Scots to “Go we are going to pay for you lot anymore”.
45 - although I’m not a convinced supporter of EVFEL, could you tell me why a Vale of Glamorgan voter would really care that their MP couldn’t vote on, say, prescription charges in Berkshire? Or anything else that doesn’t directly affect them? Particularly when they have another elected representative dealing with the same matters that do affect them in Cardiff Bay?
4 Tapestry: …the most shocking statistic in the above is the number of Conservative MPs in England versus Labour, where more people voted Conservative than Labour.
Tapestry - I think you must mean the situation where more people voting Conservative than Labour in England results in 189 Conservative MP’s compared to 285 for Labour.
A CHALLENGE TO ALL PB’ERS
Defend, realistically and above all fairly , this situation.
If it were going on in a third world country, would we not be describing it as being nothing short of legitimised voter fraud on a massive scale?
A number of English are playing into the hands of Alex Salmond without checking their facts. Overall the major winners from the UK are Wales, Northern Ireland and the North East who get large sums of money from Westminster and give little back in return. The Scots get more than average but in return also provide large amount of taxes from its strong private sector and the North Sea. Scotland also suffers major problems due to its size and remoteness which means it cannot be as efficient as the South East. Scotland also has areas of deprivation such as East Glasgow with crumbling infrastructure that require major investment.
I disagree with Stuart who seems to think the Nats are on a roll. They launched with major fanfare, a few months ago, a major discussion on independence to deafening silence up here. The polls brought out when Brown was thinking of going to the country showed the Nats would do badly. In addition a study of the last election showed the Nats support was mainly old and male which is not good in a country where the men drink themselves to death early.
Cameron needs to move on from this idea to proposing real devolution of power in England. As far as I can tell health is devolved in Scotland, Wales and NI. Education is devolved in NI and Scotland. Policing is devolved in NI, Scotland and London. Transport is devolved in Scotland, NI, Wales(?) and London. Planning is devolved in Scotland, Wales, NI and London. In summary the whole thing is a mess.
My mom lives near Cameron’s constituency where Labour has zero support yet is planning to completely redraw Oxfordshire. If this happened in Scotland we would be up in arms and on the streets. Maybe the English need to get a backbone and stop blaming the Scots.
37. agingjb
Here’s how wealthy the countries around the North Sea/North Atlantic are:
GDP (PPP) per capita (2006 unless stated otherwise):
Norway: $46,300
Ireland: $43,600
United States: $43,400 (2007)
Iceland: $40,300 (2005)
Channel Islands: £40,000 (2003)
England: $38,000
Denmark: $37,000
Canada: $35,600
Netherlands: $35,100
Isle of Man: $35,000 (2003)
Scotland: $33,700
Sweden: $32,200
Belgium: $31,400
Germany: $31,400
France: $30,100
Wales: $23,700 (2002)
Faroes: $22,000 (2001)
Greenland: $20,000 (2001)
Northern Ireland: $19,600 (2002)
Even without the revenues from its oil the Scottish economy is doing alright. The thing is, it should be doing a whole lot better.
I think Cameron is playing with fire. Talking about ‘English votes for English matters’ would very quickly to the breakup of the UK if actually implemented. I think voters will see through this pretty quickly.
OT: Has anyone seen Baxter’s new model? I updated my data to take account of the MORI poll and noticed that it seemed to produce a few more Lib Dem MPs and a slightly smaller majority than the old model (even though the updated voting shares were slightly in Labour’s favour).
http://thepoliticaltipster.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/filtered-polling-data-lab-majority-12/
53. So Labour have created a constitutional position which will inevitably lead to the break-up of the UK if applied fairly. Well done!
Stuart, it is such a shame that Alex does not seem to be getting the point you are making. If he spent half the time he does on winding up the English on energising the private sector in Scotland he would have my support. Where are the business rate cuts we were promised?
52: Stuart
Scotland’s position on that table is as a result of the massive public sector expenditure & employment funded by England! Your kidding yourself on if you think that is sustainable in or out of the Union.
50: The thing that has always shocked me is how quiet the media is about it. All the hacks that laughed at the Americans when things went wrong in Florida have ignored what has happened under their noses.
Jon, education is also devolved to Wales, which is why we have no devisive league tables, no SATs and are introducing the Scandinavian model of “learning through play” which will reap dividends in the years to come.
45 Why would a voter in Wales be interested in whether his MP can vote on English matters or not? More interested I’d of thought in MP standing up for Welsh interests. Same in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Gordon Brown might well be interested in what he can do for English education, health service and transport but it is rather colonial master isn’t it? Doesn’t affect him as an MP if it goes wrong or is unfair (though it might affect his re-election prospects as PM).
Devolution is unfinished - as Labour said “it’s a process” and a solution to the WLQ does need to be found.
“Defend, realistically and above all fairly , this situation”
Now you know that can’t be done. Living in a (once) safe Labour seat, it grieves me enormously that my vote never counts (other than contributing to the headline national vote share). But the status quo is the only way to prevent a tiny party like the LDs deciding who governs this country, and no doubt being permanently in government - with either Labour or the Tories needing to court and win their support.
The suggestion I’ve advanced in the past is as follows:
- split the UK into a smaller number of multi-member constituencies each electing, say, 10 MPs (perhaps county-by-county; larger counties having maybe 3 or 4 multi-member constituencies)
- party lists
- voters have one vote only, for the party they want to form the next government
- same system as the Euro-elections, with the parties allocated a fair-ish proportion of MPs for each seat to reflect the vote shares
- a constitutional right for the largest party in parliament to form an administration
- formal post-election coaltions to deny the largest party power to be forbidden. Any power-sharing deals to be formally announced to voters ahead of the election - say by the date candidate lists have to be finalised (so ballot paper might read “The Labour-Lib Dem Coalition Candidates”, “The Conservative Party Candidates” etc)
- the new administration (assuming it has no overall majority) has to put forward sensible, centrist proposals that can win the support of the House
Would be interesting to see how the vote shares came out when people could vote for the party they actually want and not tactically.
How far can this be taken? Should non-London MPs have no say on the Tube or Crossrail?
Is most of the “Scottish” oil not nearer Norway than Aberdeen ?
55. Jon L - “Where are the business rate cuts we were promised?”
LOL
- you know you are winning when the only thing your opponents can think of is to wonder when you are going to introduce all the wonderful policies you had in your manifesto!!
Red-Flump, Transport matters for Scotland have been taken away from all English MPs. London transport matters still remain for English MPs (and others) to have a say in. Unfortunately Scottish MPs have the right to have a say on London and England’s transportation although they are powerless on Scottish transport matters.
But, this thread should be about the betting implications of the change in policy, not debating the merits or demerits as we should leave that to the politicians.
61 I’d support much more devolution down to county/borough level in line with the older UK model and reversing the centralisations of the latter part of 20th century. So decision on Crossrail should be made by London and counties it serves. However if London is asking for central government support then all MPs should be involved in the financial decisions. There is also a place for an English transport policy and network (motorways, rail. A roads etc) which should be decided at English national level as in Scotland - by English MPs.
It is surely time for Scottish Conservatives to consider their position. Time for them to break away and form a party totally seperate from the Conservative and (no longer) Unionist Party.
The Scottish Conservative Party could then commit itself to independence for Scotland. Freeing itself, from what is now becoming an English Conservative Party. The Welsh Conservatives should also consider that route.
Once the main political parties have accepted the Union is no longer sustainable, then an amicable end can be achieved. England can then redraw its political map. Labour shorn of its Celtic MP’s will then have to enter serious discussions with the Libdems to provide a valid left of centre party, or else face Conservative domination of England.
60 (re. 50, 4) Bob Sykes: But the status quo is the only way to prevent a tiny party like the LDs deciding who governs this country, and no doubt being permanently in government…
Hang on a minute, by what measurement are you describing the LD’s, who had, 22.1% of the UK vote in 2005, as tiny, when neither of the other parties had anything close to double that figure?
[Labour 35.3% (= “a decisive mandate”), Conservatives 32.3%]
52 - Interesting to know whether ‘Scottish’ companies like distillers are included in the England or Scotland figure.
55 - Jon L, again as a Tory I’m loath to admit it but from what I have seen, Salmond’s boys (Swinney and Mather particularly) have been received positively by the private sector as a breath of fresh air with a ‘can do’ attitude - not sure that the rest of his party is viewed like this though…
62 - “Is most of the “Scottish” oil not nearer Norway than Aberdeen?”
As I understand it, it’s whether the oil is found on the UK continental shelf rather than distance as the bird flies. Also don’t forget Shetland in the equation.
61: Those are national not London only projects.
A lot of the Mail story comes down to hard cash. It would be possible for a UK government to reduce Scotland’s and Wales’ share of funding, but because 90% of the population is in England, there is a multiplier effect - for every £1 in tax that you save English voters, you have to take £4 off Scottish voters. How likely is that to appear in a Conservative (or any) manifesto? And if it doesn’t, the same sort of discrepancies in spending will turn up whatever the governance arrangements.
There’s a good analysis of the Barnett formula in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnet_Formula
which has the interesting comment that the discrepancy is diminishing by itself and will disappear in around 30 years.
69 Stephen B
In addition, it may be helpful to take a keek at this map of the marine boundary between Scotland, Ireland and England:
Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/99112601.gif
71: Now that Labour is no longer in charge I’m sure there will be a ‘reason’ to cut the money going to Scotland.
68.Good couple of points there StephenB.
I was beginning to look forward to an SNP referendum on independence for the simple reason, that it might bring about an open and honest discussion on the whole issue of what Scotland contributes and takes from the Westminster pot. What we have had over the years is various parties putting forward different arguments and solutions for IMHO purely partisan reasons, the real facts seem to get lost in the mix of different agenda’s.
You should all know by now that it’s not a case of picking a topic that everyone supports, but a case of picking a topic everyone supports and cares out.
While people may be outraged at the WLQ, I’d imagine that when they actually come to vote this will be around number 16 or 17 on their list of priorities and top issues.
The Tories have a knack for doing this - picking popular issues which will never garner them any votes because no-one cares enough. First it was the Euro in 2001, this time they seem to be taking the EU Treaty and WLQ nowhere fast.
YES. Cameron is on a winner with this. This will prove very popular in England, where many of the marginal seats are.
The situation re the Oil/Gas, is part of the Norwegian sector, Gas for instance landed at St Fergus, (near Peterhead) comes almost entirely from the Frigg field, (Norwegian) the offshore company that exploits the field is Elf Aquitaine (French) and Total.
As for the oil, there would be one hell of argument over who owns it. Even though Scotland could lay claim, at the time of its discovery it was in UK waters. So there would be legal dispute as to actual ownership.
I could point out, that before Gas was discovered North of Scotland, Gas was transmitted all the way from the Norfolk coast too Scotland, without any thought of it being English Gas. It could be that, England could send Scotland a bill for that gas.
67 - 11% in the polls, versus 38-41% for the other two?
It’s quite easy really, leave the eu and use the 115 million quid a week we hand over to them as England’s barnett formula.
75 You are overstating a little the importance of WLQ/Devolution to voters . The latest Mori Political Monitor has it at No 29 on the list of issues voters consider important to Britain today with less than 1% of voters considering it a significant issue .
53 - I hear that a lot from Labour people, but no one really explains how. It seems to be an exercise in covering your ears and shouting it as loud as you can, until the other person gets bored and walks away. I am quite sure, however, that this will fail. The electorate are more sophisticated than you give them credit for, and your argument basically boils down to ‘It is good to give powers to the Scots and the Welsh, but it is bad to give powers to you English’, and I don’t think that will sit too well in 50 million households. Am I really wrong? Can you honestly provide me with an argument about how the current devolution settlement is acceptable?
We will never be allowed our own Parliament as long as the British gravy train exists. Independence for England now!
79 Mark Senior, thanks for providing the stats that this issue currently has a low significance with voters. That supports my point that it will take 12 months to turn the issue into a vote winner. But as Mike has pointed out each Salmond PR move will provide the ammo for the media to feast on the inequities. The issue of course is in the top ten matters for the MSM and they influence voters.
One observation I would make is that the Conservatives are seizing the initiative in “making the news” from the Govt. Labour are having to respond to the Conservatives agenda and not vice versa. This is a key development that will shape which party has the biggest influence on the media.
The MORI poll gives Labour a 50 seat majority according to Electoral Calculus, even though they are only one point ahead.
It’s not fair but I don’t care!
Funding imbalances and the WLQ is only part of the perceived unfairness that can be connected to Scotland. A number of Scottish constituencies have significantly fewer voters than the 68,492 UK constituency average, most notoriously Na h-Eileanan an lar, which has an electorate of just 21,169. Compare this to the Isle of Wight with its electorate of 107,737.
Throughout the UK as a whole, in Conservative won seats the average electorate was 72,715, as compared to Labour 66,665, LibDem 69,162, Plaid Cymru 44,296, and SNP 58,448. To me this seems astonishingly unfair.
79. Obviously, and you yourself know this, that is because it has a low public profile and people are not aware of it.
re 31 what’s all this guff about two classes of MPs - there already ARE two classes of MPs. If one of Gordon’s Brown’s constituents came to see him about a health or education matter he’d have to send them off to tsee their MSP.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7066389.stm
Are you thinking what I’m thinking?
79.Mark, you are underestimating one factor in this. Alex Salmond is in Bute House and his party want a referendum on Independence, what you perceive to be a non story caused your own party North of the Border some problems when it came to coalition talks with the SNP. We have noticed over the last couple of days that no one seems to have any idea what the Libdems position on the the WLQ is, but like Labour, burying their heads in the sand is not an option.
I am critical of how some in Conservative party are choosing to handle the WLQ, and they do run the risk of it backfiring on them too.
We also have the newspapers picking up on this issue as Mike has highlighted in his article, but we also have the problem of certain newspapers running different narratives on the issue in different parts of the country which is not helping.
79: And a 1.5% swing to the Tories deprives Labour of a majority.
Also us Brits don’t like unfairness and this is blatantly unfair.
Stephen B, I have heard that Mather is very competent and I much prefer his low key style. The SNP plan to have a bonfire of quangos and put the money saved into doing sensible things like upgrading the M8 is vote winner if it happens. I want the best for Scotland and if the SNP deliver on that I will applaud them.
The Scottish Tories have no need to become independent. We are by definition a loyalist party to the core. This is something many English just dont get. History is more important to us than self interest.
83
Your are right it is unfair, but the solution is PR, and the Conservatives in particular don’t seem keen on that.
Has anyone else found the site still visible, but with a different format and a dark background?
89
History is bunk, self interest is better.
Scottish Tories had better get real, their English counterparts don’t give a toss about them.
82 - nice hours you work in the Brown Bunker, Gabble - knock off at four, don’t start ’til ten…is this really the work ethic expected by the son of the Manse?
“It’s not fair but I don’t care!”
We’ll file that one away for future use.
Anyone else having problems with the site similar my query @ 91?
After Labour have implemented a two tier system for social services ,higher education,life saving drugs and two classes of MP’s,we then get Harriet Harman saying that any attempt to change this will break up the UK,difficult to know whether to laugh or cry at her absurd comments.
Is it really unfair?
This is not a partisan point, but I’ve been thinking about this and want to have my 2p. I am pro electoral reform and at first glance the Tory number of English MPs is wrong. But the reason why they do is they pile up votes in the south. Labour has a more even distribution across the country and are much more efficient in the first past the post system.
How can/should we correct this. Do we value geographical diversity in the electoral system? Where at present Labour do better at reaching the full diversity of England and the Tories should aim to broaden their appeal outside the south. Or should we bias representation in favour of the southern Tories to bring back into balance the overall seat count?
I think this issue is not that important giving the overwhelming numerical domination of England anyway. Where it could matter is in the mood music - it’s just one more thing eating away at the mind of the swing voter and telling them it’s time for change.
94 - Chris, everything looks OK with site at my end. Has your lettering ‘gone funny’ or is it just the background?
83.As I understand it that problem is more stark in Wales at the moment. On the other hand, what do you do when you have such a scattered population as is the case in the far reaches of the North of Scotland and its islands? I think to be fair an MP has got to be given a reasonable land mass to cover to enable to do a good job, lets not take this argument into the realms of the absurd.
92.GOM, change that comment to state that “Scottish Tories had better get real, *some* of their English counterparts don’t give a toss about them.”, and I will agree with you wholeheartedly. They also tend to be the group that over the years have never given up the chance to blow on a short term dog whistle at the expense of a more subtle and sensible long term strategy which would benefit the whole party rather than just their own area.
96 Jonathan, the issue is all about the impact it is likely to have on the voters. Whether we like it or not is an irrelevance.
91. Happens to me occasionally - just reload the page.
A number of Scottish constituencies have significantly fewer voters than the 68,492 UK constituency average, most notoriously Na h-Eileanan an lar, which has an electorate of just 21,169. Compare this to the Isle of Wight with its electorate of 107,737.
That’s unfair. The worst of the Scottish electorate problem has been corrected - apart from Na h-Eileanan an lar, Orkney and Shetland, and one or two of the Highland seats, which would otherwise be too large to manage effectively. The Isle of Wight would certainly have two MPs by now - but none of the political parties on the island are in favour of it.
96.Just got the normal format back. The white page on which the thread runs had disappeared, I was left with the much darker backdrop we have at the edges. Also all the links and advertising were dotted all over the bottom of the page.
I’m no expert on Scotland, but why shouldn’t EVsoELs play well in Wales? After all, it would then be much clearer why you are voting for your AM or MP. You vote Joe Blow as MP to handle defence, foreign affairs, major transport infrastructure, UK budget, etc. You vote Jane Blow as your AM to handle local health, education, culture, transport and budget priorities. Much clearer. At the moment, Blodwyn voter has no idea what her elected representative is there for.
Labour and the Lib Dems spent years demonising the English and by implication the Conservative Party in Scotland.
Two weeks ago we had Darling, Alexander and Michael Connarty one after the other on the Today programme.
What do they all have in common?
Just as the Scots would have been persuaded that Lawson, Parkinson and Norman Tebbitt were somehow evil and had no right to interfere as was always put in Scotland when the appeared in the media promoting the Governemnt of which they were members, then the situation with these people, particualrly Alexander, lecturing England when their constituents are governed by someone else
Last year a disabled man was severly injured and a child assaulted - for wearing an England footie shirt in Scotland.
Labour and their Scottish coalition partners, the Lib Dems, will reap what the sow.
Devolution means that the devolved institutions decide how they spend the money that is allocated via the Barnett formula. If Scotland and Wales wish to spend money on free prescriptions then it effectively means that they have less money to spend on other issues. At the moment Welsh schools are complaining that they receive less per pupil than their English counter parts.The problem for both devolved bodies is that they have both benefitted from the vast amounts of extra cash that has been allocated to the public sector since 1999. The recent CSR shows that the party is now well and truely over. It will therefore be interesting to see how they operate in a very diferent financial climate. It might suit Salmond to use the arguments about Scottish oil and to claim that Scotland has been robbed but whether Scottish voters swallow this is another matter. In Wales it is also clear that given the comments by Peter Hain yesterday that he doesn’t expect a referendum on new law making powers before 2011 the tensions between Labour and their Plaid coalition partners are bound to increase.
100 I have no doubt that the issue will have an impact and that Labour need to have a clear, coherent and transparently fair answer to it.
Personally, I am concerned that there is a lot of scope for emotive, cheap populism here that could well screw up the UK for generations. I trust the senior Tories don’t want to do that, but there are real risks here that this could turn into something nasty.
The best way to deal with the English votes issue is to really understand the problem. I am just trying to do that by playing with some ideas. The Tories look like they should have more MPs based on their vote. But surely we still want to ensure full geographical and social diversity in the UK. If you took seats from Labour and gave them on balance to the Southern Tory strongholds to nmake the national vote more like PR some areas of cities, midlands and the North that elect Labour MPs with smaller majorities would have to lose some representation.
Maybe some form of TopUp list arranged on a county basis would be the answer. I would strongly support a system that gave my local county some Lib Dem representation. The fact that 30% of the vote gets them none of the counties seats is a local disgrace. Even Labour gets one MP.
105.”Last year a disabled man was severly injured and a child assaulted - for wearing an England footie shirt in Scotland.”
Last year I was in Devon with my children and we were treated to a very deliberate, nasty and loud criticism of Scotland which ended with us being told to get back up there!! Equally, I know of a case whereby a Scot during an England match tried something similar only to be put in their place by other Scots.
This kind of unprovoked violent behaviour is all too prevalent throughout the UK for a variety of reasons these days!!!
108,105 and the Mail front page.
All this stems from the current unfair system brought in by Labour.
We’re either one country with the same entitlements or we aren’t - the current situation is just going to fester and get worse.
I don’t know if it has been raised in another thread, but for me the single most important question about EVoEM is often not answered.
By convention, the Queen asks the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons to become Prime Minister and form a government. Once you have EVoEM the question is which majority? The only realistic answer is of all MPs (if it is the English only majority, the Union ends there and then). But then if the PM can’t command a majority of English MPs, why should he appoint the Ministers at the Department of Health, when he wont necessarily be able to get any of his programme through? OK then, let the biggest English party pick the Ministers at the DoH - there goes cabinet collective responsibility. And the leader of the biggest Englsih party will need some support to coordinate the English government, lets call him the First Minister for England. Then, all of a sudden, you have an English Parliament in all but name, but with ill defined powers and a very messy and likely uncomfortable relationship with the rest of the Union. Better, I think, to bite the bullet and have proper English devolution (though I don’t know at what level.)
50 - both Labour and the Tories know before the election that they need to focus their efforts on the marginal constituencies. Labour have been better at this than the Tories since 1997, and hence won a lot of seats very narrowly rather than piling up votes in their safe seats as the Tories did.
If the aim were to maximise the number of votes across England, then Labour would spend a lot less time, money and effort in Kent, and a lot more in the North West and North East, making sure that people who support Labour go out and vote. The result would be that Labour would get a lot more votes across England, but fewer parliamentary seats.
You could change the system so that parties focused on increasing turnout in their heartland areas rather than in the marginal constituencies, which would have its own advantages and disadvantages, but complaining that the current system is unfair is like saying that although you lost 3-0, you should have won because you got more corners.
107.Jonathan, I agree with most of your post. But your last point highlights yet again my biggest concern, that the arguments and solutions become steered by partisan considerations for individual parties rather than a genuine desire to find a fairer outcome for the voters.
107, Labour and the Lib Dems created the WLQ. They were warned and ignored it. The Conservatives have made a move to addressing it. Labour have chosen to oppose their proposal. The main 4 newspapers can see lots of opportunities for “scandals” about the present inequity. Until Labour provide a solution that reduces the heat, the temperature will just increase.
Meanwhile in Scotland Alex Salmond knows that he can widen the split by providing more inequities in Govt spending to stir it all up.
Labour have lost control of setting the “media agenda” on this issue. On any day, Salmond can announce some new benefit for the Scots that will put the issue on the front pages. Without a solution, Brown is powerless to stop Salmond’s PR stunts.
Brown knew it was his achilles heel which is why he tried speaking about Britishness. He should have focused on solutions that would lance the boil, not an attempt to wrap himself in the Union flag. The editorial in the Telegraph offers Brown a solution, handing power to the county and unitary councils. Would Brown hand over Health and Education, just to stay in power? He might, but only after months of a media barrage.
109 - I would also add that while I am very identifiably a southern ‘posh-sounding’ Englishman, I have never experienced ‘racism’ towards me in all the years I have lived in Scotland.
The worst I come across is people assuming I’m on holiday rather than living round the corner but on the grand scheme of things, that really doesn’t rate as an issue and I haven’t been told to ‘go home.’ I would also assume that I was seen as a bit green behind the ears in some matters when I first moved here but I expect this would have been the reaction anywhere in the UK.
I’m also not aware of ‘racism’ extending to fellow ‘ex-pats’ - if any of them are damned in other people’s eyes, it because they have perhaps acted foolishly, not because of where they are born!
104. Your post, inadvertently I suspect, has put the finger on how Rifkind’s proposals short-change the English voter.
In Scotland and Wales you can vote for party X if you like their Scottish/Welsh policies, but for party Y if you prefer their UK policies.
The Tories are denying this choice to the English voter.
112 I am not partisan. I am not a Lib Dem, but I really think it is unfair that 30% of the voters in West Sussex my county (and I do perhaps controversially believe that the county is a strong geographic institution) don’t have a single MP.
If we did think the reputation of my county and the relationship it has with national government would be better. I don’t think you can massage the system to address specific unfairness on a case by case basis. But if there is reform, this one case of unfairness that I would hope to see addressed.
80: “Can you honestly provide me with an argument about how the current devolution settlement is acceptable?”
OK, I’ll bite. This will be a bit long. I’m not a Labour supporter, and I personally support something completely different, but let me give this a shot, because I don’t think the government is being unreasonable here. This is about the rights and wrongs of the issue, so people who are only here for the political strategy and the betting can press the page-down button now.
The UK government (or technically the Queen) is ultimately in charge of all levels of government in the UK, but from time to time they devolve powers to other elected bodies. These aren’t always consistent across to country; For example, Northern Ireland has had an assembly some of the time, and been ruled directly some of the time. London used to have the GLC, then was directly ruled by Whitehall, then had its own assembly again.
The government’s position appears to be that the kinds of government that make sense for large areas are either regional assemblies / legislatures or direct rule by the national parliament / legislature. This isn’t particularly eccentric; Most democracies in the world use either one of these or both.
In the case of the UK, unlike a lot of democracies, most of the regions don’t actually want an assembly / legislature. They asked the most promising region, the North-East, and they said that they’d rather be ruled direct from Westminster. So the government respected their wishes and didn’t force one on them.
It would be unfair would be if the voters of - say East Anglia demanded their own assembly and the UK government, expecting that they would elect the Tories to run it, turned them down. But that’s not what’s happening. As it stands, the English regions don’t want regional assemblies so the government doesn’t give them to them.
Is that arrangement unfair to the regions that don’t say they want them that national MPs from regions with devolution have powers over them, whereas their MPs don’t have equivalent powers over the devolved regions? I suppose so, but it’s a bit of a stretch. If you have three friends over for dinner, and you offer everyone a glass of wine, but one of them doesn’t want it, I suppose you could say it’s unfair that two of them have a glass of wine but one doesn’t…
At the very least, if people are advocating doing something odd like having a parliament / legislature where people with devolved powers can’t vote on various different issues, they can’t expect to win by default on the basis of the supposed unfairness of the status quo. They need to make a case for why doing something like that would provide for better, more reponsive, more effective government. Maybe they can do that, but I haven’t heard it yet.
102 - i think its ridiculous that the Hebrides Westminster seat has just 21k voters, and with most areas of voters’ concern devolved to the MSPs anyway - and so what if it’s a massive area, it’s the size of the electorate that’s important, responding to their letters and emails, not how long it takes to drive round the patch? As for the IoW, I understood that the reason the 3 parties favour the status quo is that the Electoral Commission has only ever put forward a proposal for 2 seats which includes part of the mainland (something like “IoW West” coupled with “Portsmouth South and IoW East”, I guess). I understood they felt the island’s population was not enough to justify 2 stand alone seats. A bit rich when the Hebrides has just 21k voters! I may be completely wrong on this though…
71: Now that Labour is no longer in charge I’m sure there will be a ‘reason’ to cut the money going to Scotland.
Aha - the Mugabe solution!
108. ChrisD - sadly you are right, such unpleasant incidents have become notably more common in recent years. But who is responsible for this - surely the Labour/SNP/media mesalliance who as described up the thread spent much of the 1980s and 1990s stirring up enmity between the Scots and English?
There clearly isn’t an official Conservative view on this matter. Mark Field MP has a proposal for a federal UK on the ConHome website at http://tinyurl.com/ywv93t which he modestly describes as an “elegant solution” and which will also, apparently, encompass House of Lords reform.
I can’t work out what he’s on about, but maybe others can.
120 But maybe the Hebrides represents a coherent geographical entity and institutions with a meaningful single voice. If we value geography in our electoral system then we have to put up with some imbalance in demographics. Maybe it’s time to lose the geographical link. I am not sure I agree. Portsmouth shares some issues with the IOW (the need for ferries), but in many cases there will be a fundamental conflict of interest (healthcare spending)
113 I think the WLQ emerged from electoral drift apart of Scotland and England that started in the 1970s and ’80s.
To focus blame on the 1997 reforms is to ignore the preceding massive unfairness typified by imposition of the poll tax on Scotland in the late 1980s. It was a big mistake for the Tories to single out Scotland for the poll tax trial, a place where they had no mandate. Why didn’t they try it out in the South of England?
118.Jonathan, I know you are not a Libdem, I was just pointing out that sorting out the WLQ will lead to some trying to widen the debate on to issues like PR.
People have differing views on this, fair enough, but only last week we were discussing the Gould report into the voting fiasco in May. Just imagine what the outcome might have been if the solution to that problem had been driven by concerns for the voters instead of partisan considerations and yet more variations on the PR theme?
120: The IOW has only one seat due to local opinion.
123: And adding say Skye would stop it being a coherent geographical entity?
121.StephenB’s experience is the norm for most people North and South of the border. There is a small minority who would behave like this where ever they lived in the UK.
and so what if it’s a massive area, it’s the size of the electorate that’s important, responding to their letters and emails, not how long it takes to drive round the patch?
But this does place a constraint on how well the electorate is served - if campaigning, surgeries and other constituency activities can only be managed by, say, flying around the constitency, the practical extent to which an MP can serve disparate communities whose interests may conflict become difficult. While Scotland may be devolved, it’s not autonomous. There are still concerns, like taxation and element of energy, which are the province of Westminster, and representatives should be able to tackle this effectively.
As for the IoW, I understood that the reason the 3 parties favour the status quo is that the Electoral Commission has only ever put forward a proposal for 2 seats which includes part of the mainland
Standalone division, along the old Medina/Isle of Wight boundaries, was also considered. The BC did make the point you mention on the electoral quota; but this could certainly have been considered if one or more of the political parties decided to sumbit their own recommendations and push for a formal inquiry, which they didn’t.