citizenJA wrote:Willow904 wrote:StephenDolan wrote:Morning all.
I'd be interested to hear Alexander, Cable, Laws and Farron pushed for their opinion on Clegg's numerous 'what is legitimate' chats. Chance for the orange bookers to come a cropper? Personally Clegg is playing a dangerous game. If Labour get more votes he's boxed himself in.
Morning.
Clegg's got a nerve, hasn't he?
Using the anti-austerity votes of Libdem voters to prop up a Tory austerity agenda wasn't exactly fair play either, but whoever can command a majority to get a Queen's speech through gets to form a government. Them's the rules and Clegg wasn't bothered how it looked last time out so carping about Labour and the SNP getting together to lock the Tories out is the height of hypocrisy. At least Labour and the SNP will actually be reflecting the wishes of their collective voters in doing so, unlike Clegg who essentially stuck two fingers up to those who put him into government. There's nothing "illegitimate" about Labour and the SNP out polling the Tories and their collection of ragbag loonies and fruitcakes - it's called majority rule and that majority is about finding a majority with common ground, not of specific party. Specific parties are all broad coalitions in themselves anyway, banding together by vaguely shared ideology to try to get to that majority. We've had very distinct parties standing on allied grounds in the past such as the Liberals and SDP as the SDP-Liberal Alliance. If they had won an overall majority in 1983 or 1987 no one would have questioned their right to govern as a loose amalgamation of like-minded views, so I see no reason to call a similar arrangement between Labour and the SNP "illegitimate". You'd think Clegg, of all people, would be familiar with the idea of consensus politics. But then again, he did completely ignore the very clear anti-Tory cuts consensus evident at the last election to throw in his lot with the rejected economic policy of Cameron and co of extreme austerity.
I'm interested in your opinion of an article I've read last night from Rafael Behr writing in the G. It's a procedural opinion piece; the title of the article doesn't do it justice. Also, some of the posts below the line are genuinely good, worth reading. Someone who I'm not frequently in agreement with brought up an excellent point - surely anyone living in a constituency represented by a lawfully elected Westminster MP of any party have every right to expect that MP full voting rights on UK issues just like any other representatives from all Westminster constituencies. Is that accurate?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... l-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
edited to correct grammar apologies
Hi JA.
My opinion on this is simply that the rules are the rules until the rules are changed. Anyone can stand for parliament and that includes nationalists. If a lot of nationalists gain seats they will have more influence than if they only have a few. This goes for any group. If Ukip win a lot of seats there will be more pressure to leave the EU, just as more SNP MPs lead to more pressure for an independent Scotland. There is no difference between the two and no problem with either, it's how democracy works and demonising the SNP in the way the Tories have shows a distinct lack of respect for our democratic system and the will of the people.
The problem, where there is a problem, has nothing to do with the SNP having the values and aims that they have or voters choosing to vote for them rather than more UK wide parties. The problem stems from the devolution that happened during the last Labour government. It fundamentally changed the political administration of the UK as a whole in a way that has not been fully adjusted for within our representative democratic system. My opinion is that we need a constitutional convention leading to a complete overhaul of our system of government that reflects the devolution of powers to NI Scotland and Wales and reflects that in equal devolution to the regions. An English parliament would not be comparable to the current devolved countries, to my mind, as its size in population is so much greater. Regions based roughly on those in which we vote for MEPs would be of a more appropriate size and demographic make-up to mirror NI, Scotland and Wales in what kind of devolved powers would be suitable and doable. All regions would then have similar devolved powers and Westminster MPs would have a similar representational role regardless of which region they represent. Devolution to cities doesn't work for me because it leaves a patchwork of poorly represented rural regions and would create very urban administrative regions that wouldn't reflect the devolved countries we already have.
Whatever the next step is regarding devolution (and one way or another more is coming due to the promises made to Scotland) the decision of how to deal with the current anomalies that it has thrown up is better coming from a constitutional convention of some kind that seeks to consult as wide a range of people as possible, rather than from a minority of people from within Westminster, if it is win the confidence and support of the nation as a whole.
In the meantime, unless parliament votes on a change to how parliament works, I can't really see how SNP MPs could possibly be treated any differently from any other MP who happens to represent Scotland. They have every right to vote on anything put before the house and the right to sit on the usual committees in the usual way. Yes, it throws up anomalies and yes, we need to work on solutions to those anomalies that devolution has thrown up, but until the house votes to implement those changes it's important to treat SNP MPs
exactly the same as all other MPs or you risk (if the polls are to be believed) dis-enfranchising an entire country, which would not be cool for an advanced democratic nation.
