More STEALTH TAXES

[Bob's Bitch]

The people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath elected GORDON BROWN in 2005 ergo he was elected to be PM as were all 356 other Labour MPs because all could've decided to run for the leadership in 2007.

All that is true enough BUT, it was Tony Blairs (bullxxx/confidence) that got Labour voted in in the first place. Do you really believe that the country would have voted for a labour government if GB was leading the party at election time?

Ermmm yeah I do actually. The Tories had clearly run out of ideas and weren't the same after Black Wednesday. Furthermore Peter Mandelson and Bryan Gould would've still taken control of the Labour Party and given it it's (then) slick image. They were desperate for power after so long out, Blair/Brown it wouldn't have mattered. As the saying goes 'Oppositions don't win elections, Governments lose them'. The Tories had lost it after the 16th September 1992 and nothing could've stopped Labour being elected in 1997 after that.

[rudolph_hucker]

Ok thats your opinion. My one is different though because I believe that Blair was/is such a character that he won the election and not necessarily the party. Whereas Brown doesn't seem to have enough personality to have gained that many supporters, not to mention the fact that (to go at another angle) he isn't English and that would have had some effect on the outcome, like it or not.
BTW I didn't vote in that election. I do however remember my sister and some of her friends discussing who they were going to vote for and not one of them actually mentioned the politics of any party, just the leaders. That tells me that it was the personality of the one man that had caught their attention. The thing is we'll never know now.

[Mad Dog]

BTW I didn't vote in that election. I do however remember my sister and some of her friends discussing who they were going to vote for and not one of them actually mentioned the politics of any party, just the leaders. That tells me that it was the personality of the one man that had caught their attention. The thing is we'll never know now.

The reverse for me. People I knew were talking in terms of parties, not in terms of leaders. Not criticising your sisters since Blair did become the figurehead of the 1997 campaign and for all his actions since was an excellent public speaker, however as Sara says, there was a move to change by then, although it would not have been to landslide as happened under Blair, so the chances of getting were in Labour's favour.

Ok thats your opinion. My one is different though because I believe that Blair was/is such a character that he won the election and not necessarily the party. Whereas Brown doesn't seem to have enough personality to have gained that many supporters, not to mention the fact that (to go at another angle) he isn't English and that would have had some effect on the outcome, like it or not.

And what has that got to do with anything? He is British and the position is the British Prime Minister. Regardless of what the media say, it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.

Anyway, I take it you know that Blair was born in Edinburgh and has Irish, German and Scottish ancestry? Or that Cameron is of Scottish extraction, his family originating from around Inverness?

[jimbobjaw]

Ok thats your opinion. My one is different though because I believe that Blair was/is such a character that he won the election and not necessarily the party. Whereas Brown doesn't seem to have enough personality to have gained that many supporters, not to mention the fact that (to go at another angle) he isn't English and that would have had some effect on the outcome, like it or not.

And what has that got to do with anything? He is British and the position is the British Prime Minister. Regardless of what the media say, it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.

Anyway, I take it you know that Blair was born in Edinburgh and has Irish, German and Scottish ancestry? Or that Cameron is of Scottish extraction, his family originating from around Inverness?

Although this is going off the point slightly, the issue for me is where their constituency is. I have no problem with Blair/Cameron running the country despite Scotish heritage. What galls me is that this people are coming from Scotish constituencies, and making decision in Westminster, which in a large number of cases do not affect the people of their constituency as they have their own "parliament". THis does not seem right that people can come in and have an affect on who things are done, and then not be bound by those decisions in their own constituencies. The issue of tuition fees is the most obvious one that springs to mind, as I believe it would not have gone through had it not been for the Scotish MP's, yet Scotland does not have Tuition fees as they very expensive "parliament" has decided that they didn't want them.

[Mad Dog]

Ok thats your opinion. My one is different though because I believe that Blair was/is such a character that he won the election and not necessarily the party. Whereas Brown doesn't seem to have enough personality to have gained that many supporters, not to mention the fact that (to go at another angle) he isn't English and that would have had some effect on the outcome, like it or not.

And what has that got to do with anything? He is British and the position is the British Prime Minister. Regardless of what the media say, it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.

Anyway, I take it you know that Blair was born in Edinburgh and has Irish, German and Scottish ancestry? Or that Cameron is of Scottish extraction, his family originating from around Inverness?

Although this is going off the point slightly, the issue for me is where their constituency is. I have no problem with Blair/Cameron running the country despite Scotish heritage. What galls me is that this people are coming from Scotish constituencies, and making decision in Westminster, which in a large number of cases do not affect the people of their constituency as they have their own "parliament". THis does not seem right that people can come in and have an affect on who things are done, and then not be bound by those decisions in their own constituencies. The issue of tuition fees is the most obvious one that springs to mind, as I believe it would not have gone through had it not been for the Scotish MP's, yet Scotland does not have Tuition fees as they very expensive "parliament" has decided that they didn't want them.

Not being Scottish, however I do know that during the period 1979 – 1997, in Scotland they had the same feelings towards a South East dominated Tory Government that used Scotland as a testing ground for policies such as the poll tax before got introduced, despite the Tories having very little representation year after year. This issue isn’t new.

The devolution issue has been one of the most badly implements issues we’ve seen in our history. You are right about that current loophole that is big enough to drive a truck through, however it would be arrogant to restrict the position of Prime Minister because they represent a non-English constituency. That would be both immoral and would merely inflame the situation further.

The problem is, and always will be, that England as an entity is far too big and far too dominant in the UK that it is virtually impossible to separate 80% of issues from those of England and of the UK. Where the distinction is clear however, like the university situation, I agree with, it should be restricted those that it affects.

But even then it has the potential to create further issues. The South East would become far too dominant in this set up, which could see the situation that you describe happening with the current set up happening to say the North, where a decision that is taken will have grave implications in other regions, but not in others? Different regions of the UK have different needs.

The solution to this problem is to turn the English regions into assemblies, with all the devolved assemblies having equal powers. That way issues could be dealt with on a region to region basis. This would include a reduction in the number of MPs we currently have as emphasis of government switches to a regional basis.

[rudolph_hucker]

not to mention the fact that (to go at another angle) he isn't English and that would have had some effect on the outcome, like it or not.

And what has that got to do with anything? He is British and the position is the British Prime Minister. Regardless of what the media say, it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.

Andy Murray is British but that doesn't make him English as he publicly admits to being Scottish first and British second. My point was meant to infer that some people only see the colour of the skin and you know exactly what point I was trying to get accross. :o

[Mad Dog]

not to mention the fact that (to go at another angle) he isn't English and that would have had some effect on the outcome, like it or not.

And what has that got to do with anything? He is British and the position is the British Prime Minister. Regardless of what the media say, it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference in the grand scheme of things.

Andy Murray is British but that doesn't make him English as he publicly admits to being Scottish first and British second. My point was meant to infer that some people only see the colour of the skin and you know exactly what point I was trying to get accross. :o

It comes across that you don't want anyone who is not English being Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of which England is one part. I don't see how bringing Andy Murray's personal identity has anything to do with this, unless you are making a generalisation about all Scots?

[Bob's Bitch]

The solution to this problem is to turn the English regions into assemblies, with all the devolved assemblies having equal powers. That way issues could be dealt with on a region to region basis. This would include a reduction in the number of MPs we currently have as emphasis of government switches to a regional basis.

Agreed, unfortunately when this idea was put to a referendum in the North it was rejected. I doubt we'll see any devolution of power for a while now 'cos the Tories certainly won't do it. The only thing I can see happening is a possible Scottish referendum on independence if the Tories do win in May because the Scots won't want to go back to a Conservative administration after the Thatcher years.

[Mad Dog]

The concept was put forward, but from what I've learnt about it, it would it would have been a watered down version. I could be wrong but it also called for the removal of the county council in the system government.

My thinking is therefore if given the option of an assembly with similar powers to the Scottish Parliament (and raising the powers of the Welsh National Assembly and NI Assembly to the same level, in addition to the London one) it may be more acceptable and gain more support. That's not going back until they vote yes, just this time giving them a proper model without taking out most of the package.

The Tories want to implement the 'English MPs vote on English only issues.' As I've already said, good luck trying to separate most English issues from those of the UK.

I could see a Scottish independence referendum, although I don't believe it will succeed since support has dropped since the SNP got in (may sound strange, but that is the trend). The Tory factor could affect the statistics, however by the same token the honeymoon period for the SNP is over. They've angered a lot of people in Glasgow by cutting funding to certain projects to spend in other areas, generally the ones they have seats in. I've been told Labour in Scotland may have sorted themselves out, so it is possible the SNP will be out in the elections.