[ccga3359]

Because without the mass of Scottish labour votes labour would be pretty powerless. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/512940 ... -vital-MPs

Nigel Farage was ballsy writing to all the Scot labour MPs to abstain from voting in English only matters. With on Scottish MP Gordon Banks missing the point. Idjut.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/512954 ... age-demand

[Batsy2]

martin14 wrote:

True, but Labour won't support that; just watch.

No, they won't. And they are already showing that they won't support it.

The Tories have 304 MPs in the Commons and Labour has 257 MPs.

That means that a temporary English Parliament sitting in the Palace of Westminster, with all the non-English MPs not included, would have 295 Tory MPs - not much different from the UK Parliament - whereas Labour would have just 191 MPs and find themselves even more outvoted than they are in the UK Parliament.

The Labour Party are already showing their opposition to an English Parliament at Westminster and are showing more concern over their political well-being than they are for England. They're not getting my vote in May.

[andyt]

Which is why you need federalism, so each region can have their own govt as well as the national one. It will never hold to have only England be deprived when all the other regions have their own parliament. Labor can stand on its head there, but the English won't stand for it.

[martin14]

Batsy2 wrote:

martin14 wrote:

True, but Labour won't support that; just watch.

No, they won't. And they are already showing that they won't support it.

The Tories have 304 MPs in the Commons and Labour has 257 MPs.

That means that a temporary English Parliament sitting in the Palace of Westminster, with all the non-English MPs not included, would have 295 Tory MPs - not much different from the UK Parliament - whereas Labour would have just 191 MPs and find themselves even more outvoted than they are in the UK Parliament.

The Labour Party are already showing their opposition to an English Parliament at Westminster and are showing more concern over their political well-being than they are for England. They're not getting my vote in May.

Nothing new with that.

And good on ya, hoping Farage gonna shake the tree up a bit.

Lord knows the UK needs it.

[ShepherdsDog]

[Jabberwalker]

DanSC wrote:

Jabberwalker wrote:

... both of whom were democratically elected by majorities. Their successors were both sent packing.

Chrétien was elected in 2000 with 41% of the vote, not a majority. That's not terribly uncommon, the USA also uses an outdated "approximation of the popular vote" model, and mistakes can be fixed the next election. However, when the next election only happens when your best buds decide it can happen, then you run into issues.

That's not how it works here. We have a multi-party system with "first past-the-post vote counting. It's controversial but a suitable alternative hasn't come along, yet. 41% in a three or four party system is a lot, by the way.

[Jabberwalker]

BartSimpson wrote:

Jabberwalker wrote:

"American-Style Federalism" sounds too scary

American-Style Federalism sounds way too unstable. Give me Peace, Order and Good Government (for a change) any day.

American-style Federalism has been around since 1789. How that ranks as 'unstable' beats me.

As to Peace, Order, and Good Government? Here you go:

Well, it barely survived a civil war that left three quarters of million of your citizens dead, half of them supressed for another half century. I'm seriously wondering if that was just the "First" civil war. Your nation is just about as divided now as then.. There are hundreds of militias dug in around the country "just in case the Feds try somthin'" and tens of thousands plus who are armed to the teeth for the day when the US government falls.