RegisteredHere

RegisteredHere

125p

9,264 comments posted · 6 followers · following 0

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Alex Dale: In defence ... · 0 replies · +1 points

It has nothing to do with energy, or housing, education, travel or health for that matter, even though all of these should be managed by England as they are in Scotland. The continued lack of an rEnglish parliament leaves the English outside London impoverished democratically.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Alex Dale: In defence ... · 2 replies · +1 points

We could start by giving the English the same devolution referendum everyone else in the UK has had.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Alex Dale: In defence ... · 4 replies · +1 points

It should still be a matter for the English to decide via our own independently-elected parliament - as it already is in Scotland and the rest of the UK. The alternative model being followed by the UK government at the moment leaves rEngland at the mercy of Westminster politicians, who are free to asset strip and hand out contracts in England like modern day feudalists.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Alex Dale: In defence ... · 1 reply · +1 points

No, issues like fracking, transport, education, health (etc), should be decided by the devolved government elected to govern that particular UK country or region. The UK parliament in Westminster should have no say over what happens in Lancashire because that should be a matter for an English Parliament to decide, just like it is in Scotland, Wales, NI and London.

The UK government in Westminster has so far refused to offer the English the same democratic representation as the rest of the country, and indeed it has imposed unwanted schemes like City Mayors and EVEL without democratic recourse to the English people affected. Until this situation is rectified, rEngland is nothing more than a client of the London City State.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Alex Dale: In defence ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Regardless of economic and environmental benefits and hazards, fracking in Lancashire was roundly rejected by the good people of Lancashire, but overturned by the UK government. In Westminster. In (devolved) London.

The sad reality is that while Scotland, Wales, NI and even London all have their own independently-elected parliaments and ministers to govern in the interests of local people; England is alone is having no democratic representation outside of the UK parliament in Westminster, which means the government in Westminster is free to frack, cut services and asset strip rEngland without the English (remember us?) having any say in the matter.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Are Blair's Brexit int... · 0 replies · +1 points

I think the problem is one for traditional conservatives, who will need to consider what they do if (and when) their party is moved to the left by the liberal contingent. Safe Conservative seats will remain Conservative regardless of whether the candidate is blue or orange, and voting for any party other than Labour, Conservative or their nearest constituency rivals is a wasted vote under FPTP.

Blair moved Labour from being a traditional centre-left (democratic socialist) party to being a liberal party, and traditional Labour supporters could do nothing because the only choice besides voting for orange-Labour was to vote Tory or liberal. The same thing will happen to traditional conservatives because FPTP allows the mainstream parties to keep competition out of the running.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Are Blair's Brexit int... · 0 replies · +1 points

I disagree. Labour's manifesto in 1997 was decidedly Labour and moved rightwards throughout his tenure. However, any concessions to traditional Labour values were just that: concessions, conceded to placate an increasingly cynical Labour membership with the prize being a Labour Party devoid of any left-wingers.

The right-wing equivalent would be the Conservatives offering concessions to UKIP to bring the block vote back onside, and we're seeing those a-plenty at the moment.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Are Blair's Brexit int... · 0 replies · +1 points

Constitutional vandalism is about right. The man wanted to turn mainstream British politics into a choice between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee neo-liberalism, even if that meant rendering most of the electorate politically homeless.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Are Blair's Brexit int... · 2 replies · +1 points

That extreme 'free' market liberalism was exactly what Blair wanted for Labour, and it's proponents would ideally like to see it installed as the dominant ideology in both mainstream parties while persisting with FPTP so that the free market liberals are never out of power.

Audacious doesn't come close to describing what Blair wanted to do to British politics.

4 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Are Blair's Brexit int... · 0 replies · +1 points

Blair's goal in Labour was to take a mainstream party of government and turn it into a political vehicle for its corporate backers, against the wishes of the majority of Labour members and supporters.

The Conservative Party is no less vulnerable, so unless you want our democracy to descend to the level of America (where both parties of government are backed by the same corporate interests) traditionalists need to be wary of liberal entryism.

Better still, get rid of FPTP and install PR elections, because while having PR might reduce the chance of majority Conservative governments, sticking with FPTP until the liberals take over both parties would be disastrous for British democracy.