The rest of the UK is merely an afterthought; as far as our current lords and masters are concerned, our interests are secondary to the prosperity of the Square Mile. Probably because trading there turns over around $2Tn/day ...
]]>Here are the tory backbenchers making sure that scottish MPs won't be part of any next UK parliament, via extending the date of the election.
It points up that currently Labour would need the scottish MPs to form the next government - and the tory MPs are not going to allow that to happen.
Of course there are other options - like throwing out all scottish MPs after a 'yes' vote, and indeed, throwing scotland out of the union before the election.
As I said before, I'm sure this has been gamed - as have placing immediate currency controls on scottish bank deposits on 19th Sept.
]]>If the Referendum votes for Independence (not certain) Ed Milliband and David Cameron are going to have to set out a plan during the election campaign. If the No campaign does win, people are still going to expect some changes, but what? There's so much where the parties seem to be in lockstep that Scotland has to be important as a campaign issue.
The Scots MPs will go. That's 52 seats, but they vanish. Votes do not move from one party to another. Historically, Labour has often had a much larger majority. There is an argument that rUK gets the boundary changes that the Conservatives have delayed, and, come Independence Day, Parliament is dissolved and we have a new election.
I am not sure that the Lib-Dem part of the coalition has any influence, I am not sure it would do them any good, but they could gain a little back if they declared against a delayed election, or rushed Independence.
And it's possible that amongst the changes brought by an election will be a transfer of Lib-Dem seats to Labour.
(For those watching from overseas, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party are becoming hard to distinguish. It's a bit like the way Republican and Democrat can look similar. Both have moved towards the political right, compared to 20 and 30 years ago. The change still matters, but whether Wall St. or The City, the puppeteer doesn't change.)
And I am not sure I trust the Mr Punch Party that these back-benchers belong to.
]]>Tory backbenchers are generally a pretty unruly bench. If you listen to things that Tory backbenchers and assume they automatically happen we'd have already left the EU, abolished abortion, reintroduced the death penalty, brought back corporal punishment and more. We'd have a spy in every bed and every journalist would be in jail. We wouldn't have gay marriage. And that's just under the current coalition. We'd probably be at war with Russia, Syria, interring every Muslim and more but, in fairness, it's hard to tell the backbench voices from some of the front bench voices there. At various points in my adult life we'd have brought back national service, but I don't think we've had that one in the last 4 years.
Given Cameron mounted part of his campaign and one of his first pieces of legislation was to remove one of the powers of the PM and fix the term of this parliament to the maximum allowed of five years, extending the term of the parliament is a big no-no. It is actually the one remaining veto power of the House of Lords, the House of Commons is not allowed to vote to extend how long it can sit without calling an election.
The only time it will get through is, as in World War II, if there's a "government of national unity" for the duration of the war. And there's not a hope of that.
They can bleat and call for it, but not a chance.
And while the electoral odds shift in the Tory's favour after the election with the loss of about 30-40 Labour seats from Scotland as opposed to 0-2 Conservative seats (with current numbers), Antonia is right - if you take out the Scottish MPs it changes the actual outcome (different party winning) in precisely one election since WII. It would have trimmed the size of Labour majorities often but never to the point that it would have made them particularly uncomfortable to lead.
There's a lot of hot air and bluster but I rather suspect it's more because the Tory backbenchers have realised, all of a sudden, there's a decent chance they'll be characterised as the party that broke up the union and "One Nation Conservatism" is a big rallying cry for Tory voters, and they'll probably lose the next election bar a miracle. They're fighting to try and be seen in the media and be able to say "Callmedave was bad, but I did my bit, vote for me as your local MP, I'm a safe pair of hands and stood up for what you believe in." It's a positioning against UKIP defectors more than an expectation of this actually coming to pass.
]]>However, on the BBC News site I can find references to it back as far as February 2008, although it's spelt out in full David "Call me Dave" Cameron" so it certainly predates my memory of it. The format suggests that might be a new form.
Without better evidence (and some time spent searching for one) I rather suspect the Wikipedia article might have the clue. It might be a reaction to the Daniel Finklestein column condemning those who call him Dave to belittle him (published Oct 2006). We're a pretty irreverent bunch, unless we have to be otherwise (like we're Tory front bench MPs say) so being told off for calling him Dave is just going to make it more likely. Knowing he doesn't really like... poor baby.
Satirists, comedians and so on will have used it. People that listen to and read and watch them will pick it up. It probably exploded into much wider use after "We're all in this together" because it just works so well to undermine it. Although I must admit I'd expect to have come across it before that but maybe it just didn't really register until then. Or maybe I'm just getting too old.
]]>We Brits are very traditional about our feudal overlords, and the "Westminister media" tends to respect that.
The bellicose Labour chap had such a long term relationship with the media pool that he was "call me Tony" Blair - "please, treat me as your friend rather than the head of state".
The Rt Hon D. Cameron, Bullingdon Club, attempted to pick up some of this credibility, by playing down his formal rank, hence, "call-me-dave".
]]>Fealty goes both ways. If they don't protect us, if they don't put their lives and honour on the line for us, we cannot be their vassals.
The media sucking up to those in power is a whole different ugliness.
]]>It's rather in contrast to the children of politicians getting packed off to an internship with a US Senator, then a quiet parachuting in for a constituency selection...
Not convinced an outdated sense of feudal duty is the one though.
Some of them, like having a family doctor, lawyer and the like make sense when viewed from the outside. Family army officer or naval officer, not so immediately obvious. But it seems to work for them.
]]>Even the BBC, which the Scots feel has been quite biased in it's coverage (pro-No) had an element of glee in their interview with Alistair Darling on Today this morning asking just how badly the wheels had come off and watching him squirm.
]]>