24-April 2023 : LAB 44% / CON 29% / LDEM 11% / GRN 5%

[oldnat]

May 6, 2023 18:34:55 GMT alec said:

pjw1961 - Think we might be talking at cross purposes here. You seem to be describing exactly what I am describing; all four nations to have their own parliaments and to manage their own affairs, coming together with defined, legally impregnable rights, to agree a common approach to shared issues under a federated system, where one nation cannot command the other three to bend to their will.

An English parliament will rule the English, but would not be able to rule the Scottish, Welsh or Irish. That's all I'm asking for.

To have any meaning, all 5 parliaments would require to be sovereign within their areas of responsibility. The concept of "the" UK Parliament being the only sovereign body would have to disappear, and that would raise an interesting problem as just how you would ensure that the (English dominated) Federal Parliament did not claim the traditional status that it has had in English constitutional thinking since the 18th century?

[neilj]

Nice to see

[Danny]

Given the recent legislation to give police extra powers to arrest anyone on sight, I wonder whether the recent change of heart by conservatives to re-hire more police has nothing whatever to do with preventing the sort of crime affecting normal citizens, but to strengthen their capacity to prevent civil disobedience. What they wanted was more forces to fight the public, not defend them.


Did others notice how essentially the public is now prevented from personally taking part in events like this by more and more crowd control keeping people away?

[alec]

oldnat - the simplest answer would be the one adopted in many (most?) federal systems, where the UK parliament or decision making body is constituted in such a way to prevent such dominance. For example, a system where majority votes must be England + one of the other three, or the US senate, where each state has 2 senators, regardless of population. The US constitution cannot be changed with the support of 75% of the states, for example. In the UK, we all had to leave the EU, despite two of the four voting to remain. Bizarre.

This is not a new problem, and many countries have found workable solutions within legally defined structures. Only dictatorships generally want the powers to subvert other nation's wills.

[pjw1961]

May 6, 2023 19:35:06 GMT alec said:

oldnat - the simplest answer would be the one adopted in many (most?) federal systems, where the UK parliament or decision making body is constituted in such a way to prevent such dominance. For example, a system where majority votes must be England + one of the other three, or the US senate, where each state has 2 senators, regardless of population. The US constitution cannot be changed with the support of 75% of the states, for example. In the UK, we all had to leave the EU, despite two of the four voting to remain. Bizarre.

This is not a new problem, and many countries have found workable solutions within legally defined structures. Only dictatorships generally want the powers to subvert other nation's wills.

The other point would be that its competence would only extend to those matters that were best dealt with at a UK wide level (defence, foreign policy, trade, the overall budget, certain common standards, perhaps some tax rates). It should be devo-max for everything else, including all domestic policy and the power to vary taxes. The UK parliament would be prohibited with interfering in those matters. The US states seem to manage this perfectly well. Also the British had a big hand in devising the German Federal Republic's constitution, which is way better than ours!

[RAF]

May 6, 2023 19:22:36 GMT Danny said:

Given the recent legislation to give police extra powers to arrest anyone on sight, I wonder whether the recent change of heart by conservatives to re-hire more police has nothing whatever to do with preventing the sort of crime affecting normal citizens, but to strengthen their capacity to prevent civil disobedience. What they wanted was more forces to fight the public, not defend them.


Did others notice how essentially the public is now prevented from personally taking part in events like this by more and more crowd control keeping people away?

The thing with the Tories that you have ronremember is that they are the party of economic liberalism, not social liberalism (the latter being your folk in the LDs). They're happy to be as authoritarian as necessary to prevent any popular challenge the their policy agenda.

[James E]

re: Sky news projection - Lab 36%, Con 29%, Lab 7 points ahead, Lab 298 seats, Con 238.

That looks very much like what you get with a uniform national swing from the Tories 11% ahead to Lab 7 % ahead. A simple 9 point swing delivers 94 seats from Con to Lab.

But this seems to overlook the very varied pattern in Thursday's Local Election results, with Lab and LibDems vastly outstipping UNS in seats where they are best placed against the Conservatives.

[leftieliberal]

I haven't seen this mentioned yet: www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/06/this-election-bloodbath-was-bad-enough-for-the-tories-tactical-voting-labour-brexit-general-election

Yet growing evidence of an electorate sufficiently angry at Tory incumbents to back whoever stands a chance of defeating them may presage tactical voting on a scale not seen since 1997. Such tactical voting would bring many extra seats into play for both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Though the beneficiaries may vary, a strongly anti-incumbent mood is abroad. That is bad news for the government, and good news for all its opponents.

Robert Ford is professor of political science at Manchester University and co-author of The British General Election of 2019

[jimjam]

James E, what we can't ever know is what size the 'discounts' are from the current GE levels of support for the 2 main parties.

I asserted with no evidence that the Lab discount would be lower than the typical 10% and the Tory one larger.

That 36/29, though, seems consistent enough with Lab 43/45 and Tories 28/30 in current polling.

Omnisis is not the best benchmark I believe but some uptick in VI polls for all but the Tories, and a fall for them, may well occur as it often does in these situations but typically wanes over a month or so.

NB) Smug about my 6-8% prediction a couple of weeks ago.

[oldnat]

May 6, 2023 19:48:48 GMT pjw1961 said:

May 6, 2023 19:35:06 GMT alec said:

oldnat - the simplest answer would be the one adopted in many (most?) federal systems, where the UK parliament or decision making body is constituted in such a way to prevent such dominance. For example, a system where majority votes must be England + one of the other three, or the US senate, where each state has 2 senators, regardless of population. The US constitution cannot be changed with the support of 75% of the states, for example. In the UK, we all had to leave the EU, despite two of the four voting to remain. Bizarre.

This is not a new problem, and many countries have found workable solutions within legally defined structures. Only dictatorships generally want the powers to subvert other nation's wills.

The other point would be that its competence would only extend to those matters that were best dealt with at a UK wide level (defence, foreign policy, trade, the overall budget, certain common standards, perhaps some tax rates). It should be devo-max for everything else, including all domestic policy and the power to vary taxes. The UK parliament would be prohibited with interfering in those matters. The US states seem to manage this perfectly well. Also the British had a big hand in devising the German Federal Republic's constitution, which is way better than ours!

All of that from both of you is true - but the German model was imposed from outside in a completely new fashion - and based on a written constitution. In the USA, sovereign states came together in a federation, and delegated some of their powers to the Federal authority (much like the EU) again in a written constitution specifying the powers

English constitutional law is entirely different, and assumes the untrammelled sovereignty of the UK Parliament, which may choose to devolve some powers from itself to subordinate bodies - and take them back as it so wishes. pjw1961's use of the term "devo-max" is based on that constitutional model. That model also gives "the" sovereign parliament the power to overturn anything that a previous parliament has enacted. You can pass as many laws as you like that allocate different powers to different levels of government, but unless these can be protected against future enactments by the "Federal" Parliament, they are worthless - as we are seeing with the Tory/NatCon attacks on devolution.

So I ask a simple question. How do you ensure that the Federal Parliament or the English Parliament (whichever makes the claim to be the inheritor of "1000 years of English history" - or both jointly) cannot simply pass a law, backed by the Supreme Court, that transfers all power back to it/them?

[graham]

Very interesting results in South Norfolk where Labour has performed far better than it did in 1995 in the peak Blair year. The LDs have not recovered their former strength there , and in many wards are no longer the obvious anti-Tory challenger.

[jib]

May 6, 2023 18:41:38 GMT oldnat said:

May 6, 2023 18:34:55 GMT alec said:

pjw1961 - Think we might be talking at cross purposes here. You seem to be describing exactly what I am describing; all four nations to have their own parliaments and to manage their own affairs, coming together with defined, legally impregnable rights, to agree a common approach to shared issues under a federated system, where one nation cannot command the other three to bend to their will.

An English parliament will rule the English, but would not be able to rule the Scottish, Welsh or Irish. That's all I'm asking for.

To have any meaning, all 5 parliaments would require to be sovereign within their areas of responsibility. The concept of "the" UK Parliament being the only sovereign body would have to disappear, and that would raise an interesting problem as just how you would ensure that the (English dominated) Federal Parliament did not claim the traditional status that it has had in English constitutional thinking since the 18th century?

I think this would have to go hand in hand with Upper House (Lords) Reform.

There is a way. But the way of Patronage remains strong in the Tories, Lab and Lib.

[James E]

May 6, 2023 20:16:31 GMT graham said:

Very interesting results in South Norfolk where Labour has performed far better than it did in 1995 in the peak Blair year. The LDs have not recovered their former strength there , and in many wards are no longer the obvious anti-Tory challenger.

graham, you may remember that I pointed out 6 weeks ago that South Norfolk has become increasingly promising for Labour over the past couple of elections, and was now their most viable target in rural Norfolk.

See from 26 March 5:42pm and your own response at the bottom of the same page.


ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/57/nov-2022-lab-con-ldem?page=402

[jimjam]

The i are reporting a BMG poll with Lab 43 Cons 29 and LDs 11.

I cant find any more details but is within current range and would be surveyed before the LE results and that possible movement I mention above.

[Deleted]

May 6, 2023 20:16:14 GMT oldnat said:

May 6, 2023 19:48:48 GMT pjw1961 said:

The other point would be that its competence would only extend to those matters that were best dealt with at a UK wide level (defence, foreign policy, trade, the overall budget, certain common standards, perhaps some tax rates). It should be devo-max for everything else, including all domestic policy and the power to vary taxes. The UK parliament would be prohibited with interfering in those matters. The US states seem to manage this perfectly well. Also the British had a big hand in devising the German Federal Republic's constitution, which is way better than ours!

All of that from both of you is true - but the German model was imposed from outside in a completely new fashion - and based on a written constitution. In the USA, sovereign states came together in a federation, and delegated some of their powers to the Federal authority (much like the EU) again in a written constitution specifying the powers

English constitutional law is entirely different, and assumes the untrammelled sovereignty of the UK Parliament, which may choose to devolve some powers from itself to subordinate bodies - and take them back as it so wishes. pjw1961 's use of the term "devo-max" is based on that constitutional model. That model also gives "the" sovereign parliament the power to overturn anything that a previous parliament has enacted. You can pass as many laws as you like that allocate different powers to different levels of government, but unless these can be protected against future enactments by the "Federal" Parliament, they are worthless - as we are seeing with the Tory/NatCon attacks on devolution.

So I ask a simple question. How do you ensure that the Federal Parliament or the English Parliament (whichever makes the claim to be the inheritor of "1000 years of English history" - or both jointly) cannot simply pass a law, backed by the Supreme Court, that transfers all power back to it/them?

The only way I could see this working would be for the current Westminster Parliament  to vote to abolish itself, having first legislated for the successor  constitutional arrangements.

[graham]

May 6, 2023 20:43:20 GMT James E said:

May 6, 2023 20:16:31 GMT graham said:

Very interesting results in South Norfolk where Labour has performed far better than it did in 1995 in the peak Blair year. The LDs have not recovered their former strength there , and in many wards are no longer the obvious anti-Tory challenger.

graham , you may remember that I pointed out 6 weeks ago that South Norfolk has become increasingly promising for Labour over the past couple of elections, and was now their most viable target in rural Norfolk.

See from 26 March 5:42pm and your own response at the bottom of the same page.


ukpollingreport2.proboards.com/thread/57/nov-2022-lab-con-ldem?page=402

I do recall our exchanges - but still do not see this week's Labour success there as a harbinger of Labour being likely to win the parliamentary seat next year. Great Yarmouth is now a hung council and likely to be more winnable despite the 2019 result there.

[James E]

May 6, 2023 20:13:47 GMT jimjam said:

James E, what we can't ever know is what size the 'discounts' are from the current GE levels of support for the 2 main parties.

I asserted with no evidence that the Lab discount would be lower than the typical 10% and the Tory one larger.

That 36/29, though, seems consistent enough with Lab 43/45 and Tories 28/30 in current polling.

Omnisis is not the best benchmark I believe but some uptick in VI polls for all but the Tories, and a fall for them, may well occur as it often does in these situations but typically wanes over a month or so.

NB) Smug about my 6-8% prediction a couple of weeks ago.

When I've looked into the LibDems' polling performance around Local Elections, it's been obvious that they have had a boost every year, following the news of their good LE performances. It was because of this that I made my comparative figures reflect their VI figures before the LEs in each case rather than after.

I'd certainly expect the same this time, but would not be surprised if that boost came as much from Lab as Con. 

[alec]

oldnat - yes, that is the clear issue, which is why the UK needs to be broken up and we start again from scratch, from the starting point of four sovereign nations.

[oldnat]

May 6, 2023 21:07:24 GMT Lakeland Lass said:

May 6, 2023 20:16:14 GMT oldnat said:

So I ask a simple question. How do you ensure that the Federal Parliament or the English Parliament (whichever makes the claim to be the inheritor of "1000 years of English history" - or both jointly) cannot simply pass a law, backed by the Supreme Court, that transfers all power back to it/them?

The only way I could see this working would be for the current Westminster Parliament  to vote to abolish itself, having first legislated for the successor  constitutional arrangements.

That is the only way that I have ever envisaged a permanent reconfiguration of the UK happening. It is hard to see any circumstances in which the governing party of the UK would see it as being in their interests so to do, and there is no demand from the electorate of England to see that happen.

Consequently, like many other indy supporters, I gave up on the hope that the UK was capable of reforming itself, and saw the only way was for the largest of the non-English polities to become independent - and from there agree the areas in which common arrangements would be mutually beneficial. Neighbouring states have such arrangements in the EU where there are mutual advantages, but none can impose such arrangements on the other(s).

[oldnat]

[Deleted]

Quite a crescendo of booing apparent when the National Anthem was played before the Liverpool v Brentford fixture on MOTD just now. Draw from that what you will.

[Deleted]

May 6, 2023 13:46:23 GMT Mr Poppy said:

May 6, 2023 12:58:27 GMT @isa said:

Surely the enormity of the results in Bracknell Forest will not be lost on the movers and shakers of the various parties. And I suspect the results will make the blood run cold in the upper echelons of the Conservative Party.

The previous council was:
CON 37
LAB    4
LD       1

LAB put up 24 candidates and 22 won, LD put up 12 (7 won) and Green 7 (2 won). CON contested every ward and won 10.

The vagaries of FPTP can be astonishing. CON got 45% of the vote and 10 seats. LAB took 32% and won 22 seats, giving them overall control of the council. Some food for thought there, methinks.

democratic.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=109&RPID=61655469

The biggest beneficiary of 'formalised' (non-compete) tactical voting would be LAB, hence LAB folks will obviously push it. However, if it was formalised then LAB would win a massive majority and hence deny LDEM the one thing LDEM want: PR (although they might settle for a few red briefcases again). So if LDEM agree to formalised tactical voting they would never get what they want (Bracknell Forest being a good example of giving LAB a majority). Starmer has also said he has been long opposed to PR so LDEM want a hung parliament where they are king-maker and can force Starmer into an 'O'-turn. 

Greens: Unless LAB(+LDEM) decide to give Greens a clear run at a few seats (eg Bristol West, the two seats in Mid Suffolk, etc) then Greens would be expected to 'give way' in every seat (and LAB might even think they can take back the one Green seat: Brighton Pavillon). So nothing in it for Greens either.

'Localised' pacts already occur and could be expanded. 

EG SW.Eng was interesting in the LEs. LDEM did well in their former 'heartland', yet seat prediction models place LAB as the most likely ABCON party in most of SW.Eng. I think it is fair to say that LAB didn't make much effort in the Tiverton and Honiton by-election so LDEM won that one but EC reckon CON will take it back in GE'24, with LAB second:
www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Tiverton%20and%20Honiton

Could be more 'localised' pacts and IIRC myself/others have split out SW.Eng between LAB and LDEM in the past but at the moment I doubt LDEM would want to give LAB a clear run in most seats in SW.Eng and I doubt LAB want to allow LDEM to regain too many toeholds in their old heartland. 

What is perhaps of most benefit to LAB (and ABCON) is to allow folks to continue to simply 'work it out for themselves' without being 'prompted' by HQs or the tactical voting websites that pop up (unless those websites avoid the 'tricky' seats where its not clear who is the best placed ABCON party).

For LDEM then they want LAB to win most seats but not an OM which will mean they'll want to be 'CON enablers' in lots of seats in GE'24 - although they obviously won't admit that!

That's my takeaway.

[pjw1961]

May 6, 2023 21:35:59 GMT alec said:

oldnat - yes, that is the clear issue, which is why the UK needs to be broken up and we start again from scratch, from the starting point of four sovereign nations.

If you do that it is game over. They would remain independent and never reunite - which was my comment on your original proposal, which becomes impractical. 

[pjw1961]

May 6, 2023 20:16:14 GMT oldnat said:

May 6, 2023 19:48:48 GMT pjw1961 said:

The other point would be that its competence would only extend to those matters that were best dealt with at a UK wide level (defence, foreign policy, trade, the overall budget, certain common standards, perhaps some tax rates). It should be devo-max for everything else, including all domestic policy and the power to vary taxes. The UK parliament would be prohibited with interfering in those matters. The US states seem to manage this perfectly well. Also the British had a big hand in devising the German Federal Republic's constitution, which is way better than ours!

All of that from both of you is true - but the German model was imposed from outside in a completely new fashion - and based on a written constitution. In the USA, sovereign states came together in a federation, and delegated some of their powers to the Federal authority (much like the EU) again in a written constitution specifying the powers

English constitutional law is entirely different, and assumes the untrammelled sovereignty of the UK Parliament, which may choose to devolve some powers from itself to subordinate bodies - and take them back as it so wishes. pjw1961 's use of the term "devo-max" is based on that constitutional model. That model also gives "the" sovereign parliament the power to overturn anything that a previous parliament has enacted. You can pass as many laws as you like that allocate different powers to different levels of government, but unless these can be protected against future enactments by the "Federal" Parliament, they are worthless - as we are seeing with the Tory/NatCon attacks on devolution.

So I ask a simple question. How do you ensure that the Federal Parliament or the English Parliament (whichever makes the claim to be the inheritor of "1000 years of English history" - or both jointly) cannot simply pass a law, backed by the Supreme Court, that transfers all power back to it/them?

I will say first, just to get it out of the way, that no UK wide party is likely to offer this any time soon - but from my angle the answer is simple. The UK becomes the UR (united republic), we get rid of the whole "king in parliament" nonsense along with the monarchy and have a written constitution that guarantees the rights and responsibilities of the national parliaments of the members of the UR. Solved.  

[pjw1961]

May 6, 2023 20:12:34 GMT leftieliberal said:

I haven't seen this mentioned yet: www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/06/this-election-bloodbath-was-bad-enough-for-the-tories-tactical-voting-labour-brexit-general-election

Yet growing evidence of an electorate sufficiently angry at Tory incumbents to back whoever stands a chance of defeating them may presage tactical voting on a scale not seen since 1997. Such tactical voting would bring many extra seats into play for both Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Though the beneficiaries may vary, a strongly anti-incumbent mood is abroad. That is bad news for the government, and good news for all its opponents.

Robert Ford is professor of political science at Manchester University and co-author of The British General Election of 2019

By the way, Robert Ford is another, with Peter Kellner, who thinks the local election results imply an overall majority for Labour - the size varying with how well Labour do against the SNP.

I shall burrow with interest into the weeds of analysis of the results over the next week as I suspect that the headline narrative that was put out while the results were still coming in is going to shift. Too late for the news cycle though. If I find anything of note I will post it, with sources. 

[mercian]

May 6, 2023 8:05:59 GMT Danny said:

May 5, 2023 19:38:39 GMT mercian said:

You've changed tack. You originally said that Thatcher's governments favoured the wealthy at the expense of the poor. You now seem to be largely agreeing with me e.g. "Although the first owners probably got a free gift of cash,..".
 You are now making a different argument that 40 years later some of the policies have had unexpected consequences in your opinion.gift at state expense.

No. The policies have had the quite pedictable consequences of making the rich richer. Thatcher had to make the policy acceptable, which was done by giving the first owners a bug, but the real wealth has gone to the rich who have aquired the capital assets. And in the case of houses, also an ongoing policy of keeping prices high and steadily rising.

This is unsubstantiated speculation. Do you have any figures on how many ex-council houses were sold by the original owners, and how many are now in the hands of private landlords?  You obviously have some weird conspiracy theory, but all Thatcher was trying to do was give a stake in the country to those who had previously never had one. Also, how does selling off council housing at a low price have the effect of keeping prices high? You cannot blame Mrs Thatcher for stuff that may or may not have happened years after she was out of power.

I will not reply further on this subject as I have made my point and have no interest in a months-long debate a la you and alec over Covid. 

[mercian]

May 6, 2023 8:38:57 GMT Danny said:

May 5, 2023 22:32:02 GMT mercian said:

Not true. Pension is proportionate to number of years paid in. If it's a small amount, it will be made up by other benefits

Pension is paid out of current government receipts, not past accrued investments. All that is determined by the number of years contributions you made is the proportion of maximum pension you get. And I hope for your sake you already know this.

Buying council houses indeed helped those who were currently in them, but she didn't build any more, which was a deliberate policy.

Not true. www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-house-building#live-tables

Councils had powers to build homes taken away from them. Even when they were sitting on cash from sales they were not allowed to use it to build replacements. Thatcher set out utterly deliberately to destroy state provision of housing. At the time there was talk of the private sector stepping in and building instead, but private sector has NEVER provided mass housing in the UK because of demand from the poor. As a case in point lets consider hastings again. Big chunks of it (particularly St leonards) was constructed as posh holiday housing for the Victorian rich. And then in the 50-60s estates of decent homes were built as part of a centrally planned initiative to provide housing as overspill from london. I'm pleased to say I enjoy one of those overspill homes nowadays myself. The brickwork and windows were inferior in quality to the earlier Victorian examples, but hey we have plastic double glazing now and extra insulation. Hastings borough has favoured expansion since then too, but you only have to look at homes built even 20 years later to see how much closer together they are, with frankly smaller rooms. Thatcher caused smaller homes for everyone which would cost you a lifetime transferring your earnings to the rich to pay for.

Ok, your answer to my first point is just another way of expressing what I said. As you seem incapable of reading links, here are the council building figures for 1989:

Q1 3,100

Q2 3,610

Q3 3,370

Q4 2,680


Not large numbers, but the figures do not support your contention that councils were not allowed to build. And I really don't see the logic of blaming Thatcher for something that happened 20 years later. You need to stop living in the past and blaming every bad thing on your bogeywoman.

[Deleted]

May 6, 2023 12:58:27 GMT @isa said:

May 5, 2023 14:54:24 GMT pjw1961 said:

One wonders if the idea will penetrate the brains of Starmer, Davey and the Green leadership, that not running candidates against each other pays dividends?

Nope, thought not. 

Surely the enormity of the results in Bracknell Forest will not be lost on the movers and shakers of the various parties. And I suspect the results will make the blood run cold in the upper echelons of the Conservative Party.

The previous council was:
CON 37
LAB    4
LD       1

LAB put up 24 candidates and 22 won, LD put up 12 (7 won) and Green 7 (2 won). CON contested every ward and won 10.

The vagaries of FPTP can be astonishing. CON got 45% of the vote and 10 seats. LAB took 32% and won 22 seats, giving them overall control of the council. Some food for thought there, methinks.

democratic.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=109&RPID=61655469

Just realised that the CON/LAB voting percentages in the 2023 Bracknell Forest Local Elections are spookily similar to the 2019 UKGE percentages (CON 43.6%, LAB 32.1%). Imagine the kerfuffle if a similar 'understanding' had been in operation between opposition parties at that time nationwide, and a small LAB majority government had ensued, despite having fallen well short of CON in the popular vote. 

Just saying.

[oldnat]

May 6, 2023 22:27:13 GMT pjw1961 said:

May 6, 2023 21:35:59 GMT alec said:

oldnat - yes, that is the clear issue, which is why the UK needs to be broken up and we start again from scratch, from the starting point of four sovereign nations.

If you do that it is game over. They would remain independent and never reunite - which was my comment on your original proposal, which becomes impractical. 

That implies that your position is that unification of the current territories of the UK in a single state is your primary aim. Clearly, you can't consider that being part of the UK is of net benefit to Scotland, otherwise why would we "remain independent"?

Of course, as member states of the EU we could all reunite in that, but that is insufficient for you. So when hireton and I refer to that stance as being "British Nationalism" (ie wanting a British state, as opposed to English, Welsh and Scottish ones) it is an accurate representation.

I agree with you that the sensible restructuring of the UK (which I long supported) is impractical - but only because of the nationalist intransigence of "the Brits".

[oldnat]

May 6, 2023 22:30:32 GMT pjw1961 said:

May 6, 2023 20:16:14 GMT oldnat said:

So I ask a simple question. How do you ensure that the Federal Parliament or the English Parliament (whichever makes the claim to be the inheritor of "1000 years of English history" - or both jointly) cannot simply pass a law, backed by the Supreme Court, that transfers all power back to it/them?

I will say first, just to get it out of the way, that no UK wide party is likely to offer this any time soon - but from my angle the answer is simple. The UK becomes the UR (united republic), we get rid of the whole "king in parliament" nonsense along with the monarchy and have a written constitution that guarantees the rights and responsibilities of the national parliaments of the members of the UR. Solved.  

There is, of course, no party that is (in any meaningful way) "UK wide". The Conservative Party occasionally stands a candidate in NI, who receives a derisory vote. The Labour Party has members in NI, but doesn't allow them to stand for election as Labour candidates. Their preferred sister party in NI is the SDLP, who are a Nationalist party seeking reunification with the rest of Ireland. I think you actually mean "GB wide".

Those who haven't thought long and hard about the difficulties of constitutional reconstruction often think there is a simple answer which will mean all difficulties are "solved". (There are lots of them on my side of the indy debate too!)

Your written constitution is to be embedded exactly how? Lakeland Lass provided an answer which would work, but if your written constitution is simply to be established by an Act of Parliament, and that Parliament doesn't then vote to abolish itself, then that constitution can be annulled.