General British politics discussion thread

Knowing their past form probably yes. If it wasn't for FPTP favouring them at the expense of other opposition parties, I don't know how Labour could have survived either Michael Foot or Jeremy Corbyn.

Hard to see how he walks back his pledge on not touching the SNP with a barge pole, either before or after the GE...

The borders for possible devolution of England have already been drawn out by ONS. There have in the past been very very mild attempts to give them some sort of status in UK politics.

Careful saying that too load if you find yourself across the water.

People have been arrested for less in recent weeks.

Mmm. Why would the Office of National Statistics be involved in drawing up "borders for possible devolution"? Absolutely nothing to do with them or their expertise. And, right enough, your link is to an article about subdivisions of the UK for statistical purposes. Not the same thing at all.

Most successful federal/devolved countries devolve powers to areas that have a meaningful regional identity, so that the citizens feel a commonality with one another that they don't feel with people from the adjacent regions. England may have such areas, but it will be an astonishing coincidence if they all turn out to have more or less the same population.

I suppose it's more accurate to say ONS are the current custodians of a long running idea going back to the early 1900s and there was an attempt made to give them limited power. So ya very much the same thing if you dig a little deeper.

"Between 1994 and 2011, nine regions had partly devolved functions; they no longer fulfil this role, continuing to be used for limited statistical purposes"

The NUTS/ITL regions don't have the same populations with some up at the 8/9k mark and do have regional identity.

That became their only major role in the public sphere.

Why are you asking questions that were all answered in the link ?

"In 1998, regional chambers were established in the eight regions outside London, which produced strategic plans and recommendations to local authorities. Each of the regions also had an associated (central) Government Office with some responsibility for coordinating policy, and, from 2007, a part-time regional minister within the Government. House of Commons regional Select Committees were established in 2009. However, the chambers and select committees were abolished in May 2010, restoring these functions to the main tier of local government"

I did say "very very weak attempt at devolution" earlier today.

All I was trying to do is helpfully point out that the first step of deciding how many regions and where has for the most part been done. So not exactly sure what the attacking of these links is about.

@breezy1985

As an aside I remember seeing an alternative set of English euro constituencies which I think were drawn up by the commission. Must try to dig it up as the differences were interesting.

While I'm an ardent believer in, and supporter of, STV as the fairest version of PR, I'm inclined to agree with the assertion made by various commentators that it's a step too far for the English electorate, who have been born and reared in the tradition of voting for (or against) a coloured rosette; who or what it's pinned to has always been pretty irrelevant. In that context, it would be too much of a change for most voters to not only appreciate that henceforth their vote does count, even if they're not voting for the safe-seat party that's represented the constituency for the last 700 years, but now they'd have to get used to voting for real people aswell. So some version of a list system would be easier to explain and put into effective practice.

It's also nonsense. The closed it ever came to devolution was after the cold war and the genesis of the idea came during the Home Rule bill.