I never called them that.

^If (#501) you are referring to my #500, I wasn't even implying you did, just pointing out that it isn't too long since the SNP were regarded that way, mostly as that was how they behaved.

Or perhaps a reasonable conclusion given that you have to go back to 2001 to find a general election in which the Tories didn’t get more votes in England than any other party. Contrast this with Scotland.

2001? True but look what happened since.
Iraq war fiasco.
Banking crash while deficit spending.
Lisbon treaty fiasco.
Bigotgate (Gordon Brown calling Gillian Duffy a bigoted woman, then going to her home to apologise like a proper plonker).
Ed Miliband and his absurd anti referendum strategy which backfired.
The 'People's Vote' campaign, which backfired...

You seem rather confused about whose absurd referendum strategy backfired.

Did Ed Miliband win the 2015 election ?
No.
Did the 2015 election lead to an in out referendum in 2016 ?
Yes.
Therefore his anti referendum strategy failed.
Are we in the EU ?
No.

What is there to be confused about ?

Nice avatar btw.

Don't take me disagreeing with your argument as "shooting the messenger", I'm a democrat, I'm here to debate, not hate.

Bizarre logic. You should look up the 'correlation does not imply causation' concept.

A short article analysing the background to the 2015 election and the 2016 referendum.

He misses the referendum debate of 2011.
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...11024-0002.htm

There had been a petition signed by over 100,000 people calling for one.
David Cameron instructed his MPs to vote against holding one and the first time, the referendum was voted down, but petitions and debates kept coming.

The UK Independence Party started growing and became a threat.

Conservative Councillors were defecting.
Suzanne Evans being one of the more famous examples.

The spectre of a large chunk of Conservative MPs defecting was something he definitely did not want and committed to a referendum.
In the 2014 EU election he stated Labour and the Lib Dems won't, UKIP can't, the Conservatives will.

The defections of Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless occurred later that year after he had already committed himself by manifesto to holding such a referendum and no more MPs or MEPs followed.

But Ed Miliband, he really dropped the ball in 2014, and it cost him in 2015.
There were 4,376,635 UKIP voters in 2014, whose votes Ed needed to tap into in 2015.

In 2015
11,299,609 voted Conservative
9,347,273 voted Labour
3,881,099 voted UKIP.
Some of those UKIP voters had switched to the Tories, but most did not.

Ever considered that it was because they wanted a referendum without voting Tory ?

Ever considered that IF Ed Miliband had backed the referendum, he could have got an extra 3 million votes ?
At 12.3 million votes, Ed would have been PM.

Aside from insulting the Scots, and becoming one of the most unpopular English leaders to visit Scotland since Longshanks/Edward the 1st, nothing.

Apparently some good news: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ed-paper-shows

Suggestion that the disaster of the Tories so-called “opening up” NHS England may be at least in part reversed.

Off course yet another major restructuring is the last thing the NHS needs, but we do need to get rid of the waste, costs and bureaucracy introduced by the Tories. Whether this “reversal” happens is of course very much up in the air at the moment.

The sooner the NHS is directly funded and ADEQUATELY funded, the better.
Scrap PFI.

PFI has been scrapped.

If you think Boris and co. plan for less private involvement in the NHS you are kidding yourself. This 'reform' will doubtless take the form of yet more pretend extra money while allowing a larger role for private health care to syphon off the profitable patients.

Good.

I'm well aware how Boris and co are. That's why I don't vote for them.

No disagreement.

But Boris and co will not always be in government, and anything they do in government can be undone by a future government.

They are scrapping the ridiculous idea that local GPs should be in charge of the budget and choose which hospital should treat the patients they refer.

Which meant the budget has ended up in the hands of private companies not GP practice partnerships. That is why when I get a referral appointment now it takes 2 extra letters.

I get one from the GP saying I’m being referred and I will get a letter from such-a-such company, I then get the letter from that company saying I will get an appointment at whatever clinic/hospital they have contracted with, then I get one from the clinic/hospital with the date and time of the appointment.

That used to be one letter from the clinic/hospital giving me my appointment date and time.

Oh dear me, what a surprise yet more of good old “never interferes with politics” Queenie interfering with legislation for her own benefit…. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...private-wealth

^ Have a read of Norman Baker's ...And What Do You Do? (if you haven't already) for more dismantling of the "apolitical" monarchy myth.

The sooner we get shot of the inbred robber barons the better.

And notice that it was the Heath government who first tried to introduce that bill: I'm struggling with the idea that any Tory government since would have done so...

I'm gonna be mightily pissed off if it turns out that the Queen is rolling in money. I assumed she was on median wage with rent controls.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-seabed-rights



Nice to have a little income in your old age.

Ordered. Thank you.

George III surrendered control over the Estate's revenues to the Treasury. In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil List.
From 1 April 2012 the Civil List was abolished and the monarch was provided with a stable source of revenue indexed to a percentage of the Crown Estate's annual net revenue.

What is being discussed here is her separate 'private' income. It is worth a lot more than her income from the Crown Estate which all goes on 'official' spending associated with her duties etc.

Lots of not-political-at-all-only-a-figurehead messing about with legislation: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...queens-consent

I have ordered too. Thank you.

I downloaded this to Kindle May last year. Not sure if I read it or not, although I recall I did but haven't left a review. What is amusing is the way the Queen 'makes an appearance' and all the protocols leading up to it. 'And what do you do?' is supposedly Prince Philip's stock opening remark on meeting anybody.

What is entertaining is Baker explaining how most of the 'royal traditions' have recently just been made up as they go along.

Exactly the same thing happened with America's constitution they've even fiddled with it in the last thirty years. Outrageous.

Every tradition started somewhere

What about the tradition of having traditions?

Sounds interesting. I've just bought it on Kindle (Mr Baker owes you some thanks!)

Good old British democracy in action, no EU meddling.....

I'm all for a referendum on the monarchy, you ?

If the referendum isn't clear on what should replace the monarchy then I'm not in favour of it. We would run the risk of voting to abolish the monarchy and then spend years failing to agree what, if anything, should replace it.

If the alternative to the monarchy is clearly stated in the referendum then I would be in favour of it.

It is, I've met him - well I've stood next to a rather attractive female colleague that he made a beeline for, completely blanking me...

What would the question be?

Do you want to get rid of the monarchy?

We don't know what to replace it with, but if you vote yes we'll spend the next 5 years arguing about how to do it, and then have a botched up last minute ballsup of a deal.

Pease tick Yes or No.

A wise man.

Whatever it was would be designed to keep Boris in power.

Darat, have you considered an Amazon account so you can get commission?
:)

Feel free, I don't have a monarch.

Ah, the lesson of Brexit....

Check your pig before purchase. :)

How about an elected President, they're quite fashionable.
Elected by PR (i.e. numbered preference) for a seven year term. Immunity from prosecution for their time in office, unless voted on by Parliament, and removable by a super-majority of Parliament (or if convicted of a serious offense). Seven year term.
A fixed, but generous, salary, official residence(s) and transport while in office, plus pension and post-presidency security paid for by the state.
A ban on holding paid office afterwards, for the length of their service. Completely transparency of land, stock and investment holdings in a public register.

Me too.

Ok, but what power would they have?

Why would we need to replace it? It doesn't do anything even close to essential afaics.

Transpose the current monarchial powers.

Except consume money and resources and meddle in the affairs of teh elected parliament.

Quite: what exactly is the monarchy for? Except a constant reminder of how much power and wealth the aristocracy still have - even if you follow the "decline and fall" documented by someone like David Cannadine there is still a whole heap of land, power, money, influence and the rest in those hands.

And, why the need for any head of state?

I am all for the monarchy. Rather have a nice but dim monarch in place than some autocrat like Putin or some communist people's republic. Keeps out the fascists, too, as technically the Queen 'appoints' the Prime Minister once elected. Sure the 'men in grey' see to all this, but technically she could stop an incoming totalitarian regime in its tracks.

No she couldn’t - she would simply be ignored.

This presumes that somebody needs to be at least the nominal head of state. Why?

No, she couldn't. She has no say in the matter whatsoever. It's a meaningless ritual.