Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Oldham West & Royton set to be Corbyn’s first big electoral

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited October 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Oldham West & Royton set to be Corbyn’s first big electoral test

The very first by election of the 2015 parliament has now been triggered by the sad death of Michael Meacher who, it might be recalled, sought to mount a leadership challenge in the post-Blair leadership election.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    It'll be a Labour win.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 6,664
    If the evolution of US politics is anything to go by, by-elections will become increasingly 'nationalized' - i.e. they will attract a lot of outside participants in the campaign, thus throwing the normal form book out of the window.

    In this case, I think it will mean that the Corbynista and UKIP campaigns will benefit to the detriment of the other parties. Thus a factor will be how in the Corbyn camp the Labour candidate is - if a full blown leftie, then we can expect the new activist members' energy to be on full show. If not, a Labour win but on a poor showing for them.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    There'll be a much reduced vote unless they pick a total numpty as a candidate. Which, given Corbyn's recent choices for his team, is a possibility.

    As for the other parties:

    Should UKIP be pouring money into trying to win this which, on the face of it, looks like a no-hoper, or should they be concentrating on the upcoming referendum?

    Farron needs to get the Lib Dems some press, and fast.

    The Conservatives should look to try to keep Corbyn in for the while, and a Labour loss here might cause a move against him.

    Oh, and sympathies to BJO and his family. I hope everything works out well. If you're reading BJO, I can give just one piece of advice from personal experience: when it comes to neurosurgeons, shop around. Get at least one other opinion. Their quality varies massively.

    And I think I missed the opportunity to say 'first'!
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Morning all.

    A rather fortuitous by-election courtesy of Mr Meacher, that will test the mettle of the Purples, Yellows and Reds, better than any polls at the mo. – An easy hold for Labour imho, but interesting to see how a lower turn-out than a GE, jiggles the final outcome.

    Michael Meacher RIP
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited October 2015

    There'll be a much reduced vote unless they pick a total numpty as a candidate. Which, given Corbyn's recent choices for his team, is a possibility.

    As for the other parties:

    Should UKIP be pouring money into trying to win this which, on the face of it, looks like a no-hoper, or should they be concentrating on the upcoming referendum?

    And I think I missed the opportunity to say 'first'!

    UKIP have to stay relevant & they have a chance here - Nigel should throw himself at it. The EUOUT votes won't come from the shires, they'll come from places like OW&R.

    Oh, and what else has Nigel got to do with himself these days?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Pong said:

    There'll be a much reduced vote unless they pick a total numpty as a candidate. Which, given Corbyn's recent choices for his team, is a possibility.

    As for the other parties:

    Should UKIP be pouring money into trying to win this which, on the face of it, looks like a no-hoper, or should they be concentrating on the upcoming referendum?

    And I think I missed the opportunity to say 'first'!

    UKIP have to stay relevant & they have a chance here - Nigel should throw himself at it. The EUOUT votes won't come from the shires, they'll come from places like OW&R.

    Oh, and what else has Nigel got to do with himself these days?
    It's a difficult one for UKIP, but I really doubt they stand a chance ...

    ... unless Labour pick an absolute numpty of a candidate.

  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,869
    Pong said:

    There'll be a much reduced vote unless they pick a total numpty as a candidate. Which, given Corbyn's recent choices for his team, is a possibility.

    As for the other parties:

    Should UKIP be pouring money into trying to win this which, on the face of it, looks like a no-hoper, or should they be concentrating on the upcoming referendum?

    And I think I missed the opportunity to say 'first'!

    UKIP have to stay relevant & they have a chance here - Nigel should throw himself at it. The EUOUT votes won't come from the shires, they'll come from places like OW&R.

    Oh, and what else has Nigel got to do with himself these days?
    Labour are likely to win with a reduced majority. The Tories OR UKIP will do very well, it just depends on candidates and the campaign. One of those parties will need to show that they are THE challenger. Everyone else will get squeezed.
    Seats have been won in by-elections with bigger swings than needed here, but I don't think that will happen this time.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,267
    edited October 2015
    If UKIP are going to continue to be relevant this is one where they’ve got to do well. There’s a history over the past few elections of very right-wing parties doing well here; Nick Griffin got 6500 odd in 2001 and although that vote fell subsequently they still held on to their deposit.
    Doesn’t appear ever to have been very fertile ground for the LD’s or Libs although it’s next door to Oldham East & Saddleworth, so a reasonable result here would be good.
    If the Tories pick the same candidate as last time (and 2010) they could do well.
    As others have said, a lot depends on the calibre of the candidates, especially Labour’s!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    Morning all. Catching up on the last couple of days, seems I missed enough stories for a Billy Joel song!
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    UKIP have no chance of winning it would be ridiculous for Farage to stand and invite more opprobrium.

    The UKIP hustings are on Saturday so you won't need to wait long to see who the candidate is. My money would be on John Bickley who came close in the by-election nearby last year, a very good man.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,135
    edited October 2015
    It'll be fairly close between Labour and UKIP I think. Maybe UKIP will choose the same candidate who almost won Heywood & Middleton.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    Very safe Labour seat with a fairly equally split opposition making tactical voting unlikely. Looks like a rather dull hold to me. No doubt the Labour majority will be substantially reduced on the back of lower turnout. They will blame Meacher's undoubted personal popularity and they will probably be right.

    The bye election is probably more of a challenge for UKIP than anyone else. In the election they set themselves up as the main, if distant, challenger in a lot of safe Labour seats like this. They will be desperate to maintain that second place after a few dismal months since the election.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,367
    cookie really needs to work on his calling at the toss. Pakistan bat again. Another long hot day for the England team.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392
    Donkey terrority.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,822
    Labour should be very good value at 1/6 (with Ladbrokes). UKIP are lousy value at 7/2, though they should finish a decent second.

    However, I am reluctant betting on Jeremy Corbyn's judgement in picking by-election candidates. Given his picks for his office, he's quite capable of imposing on the constituency an on-the-run IRA terrorist.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,637

    Pong said:

    There'll be a much reduced vote unless they pick a total numpty as a candidate. Which, given Corbyn's recent choices for his team, is a possibility.

    As for the other parties:

    Should UKIP be pouring money into trying to win this which, on the face of it, looks like a no-hoper, or should they be concentrating on the upcoming referendum?

    And I think I missed the opportunity to say 'first'!

    UKIP have to stay relevant & they have a chance here - Nigel should throw himself at it. The EUOUT votes won't come from the shires, they'll come from places like OW&R.

    Oh, and what else has Nigel got to do with himself these days?
    Labour are likely to win with a reduced majority. The Tories OR UKIP will do very well, it just depends on candidates and the campaign. One of those parties will need to show that they are THE challenger. Everyone else will get squeezed.
    Seats have been won in by-elections with bigger swings than needed here, but I don't think that will happen this time.
    I think you're right - the battle (and betting) for second place is much more interesting.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Loved this description of HASC yesterday http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tom-watson/11946547/The-day-Tom-Watson-finally-said-sorry-to-Lord-Brittans-widow...-and-was-told-Youre-not-Sherlock-Holmes.html
    Normally he comes across as a tough, strutting, even intimidating figure. With his breezeblock bulk, broad-shouldered suits and thick-rimmed spectacles, he looks like a cross between a Mobster and a bully from Grange Hill in middle age.

    Not today. Here, his voice was soft, quiet, earnest. Telling the committee’s MPs he was suffering from an ear infection, he begged them, in the manner of a harmless old man, to “please speak up”
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974

    UKIP have no chance of winning it would be ridiculous for Farage to stand and invite more opprobrium.

    The UKIP hustings are on Saturday so you won't need to wait long to see who the candidate is. My money would be on John Bickley who came close in the by-election nearby last year, a very good man.

    Why not Francis Arbour, who stood at the GE (if he wants it, that is)?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    If Labour lose this, then surely Corbyn is finished. If a left-wing Labour prospectus can't win in Oldham West, held by Michael Meacher for all those years, it's very hard to see where it can win.

    What might be more interesting is to see what happens with the candidate selection.If they import some hard-left union hack, then it will be a straw in the wind and the moderate Labour MPs might become even more uneasy. If they pick a fairly dull local candidate, it would make Corbyn's life easier.

    However, if they pick somebody like the egregious Miss Powell, Mr Burnham or Dr Hunt, regardless of that person's official views they deserve to lose.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,314
    What idiot picked Ben Stokes if he's not '100%'? They would have been better off with Samit Patel.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,329
    edited October 2015
    Labour might pick a poor candidate but 1-6 looks like fair value.

    So I've gone for a pony on them here.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Is Farron going to bring the House down ? God Speed, Mr.Farron !
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Good morning, everyone.

    It'd be impressive to lose this seat.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    After 45yrs of Wedgie Benn's BFF - I suspect that Meacher's CLP is full of Lefties from the same stable.

    I'm expecting a Bennite to be selected and for Labour to retain the seat with close to 5 figure majority. How Kippers fair is the interesting bit for me.
    ydoethur said:

    If Labour lose this, then surely Corbyn is finished. If a left-wing Labour prospectus can't win in Oldham West, held by Michael Meacher for all those years, it's very hard to see where it can win.

    What might be more interesting is to see what happens with the candidate selection.If they import some hard-left union hack, then it will be a straw in the wind and the moderate Labour MPs might become even more uneasy. If they pick a fairly dull local candidate, it would make Corbyn's life easier.

    However, if they pick somebody like the egregious Miss Powell, Mr Burnham or Dr Hunt, regardless of that person's official views they deserve to lose.

  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    What's the definition of a poor candidate in these circumstances? My Sensible Compass broke when Corbyn got the top job.
    Pulpstar said:

    Labour might pick a poor candidate but 1-6 looks like fair value.

    So I've gone for a pony on them here.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    Man shot dead by police in St Neots.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392
    Pulpstar said:

    Labour might pick a poor candidate but 1-6 looks like fair value.

    So I've gone for a pony on them here.

    Not sure I can be arsed for a few quid.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 44,329

    What's the definition of a poor candidate in these circumstances? My Sensible Compass broke when Corbyn got the top job.

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour might pick a poor candidate but 1-6 looks like fair value.

    So I've gone for a pony on them here.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974

    What's the definition of a poor candidate in these circumstances? My Sensible Compass broke when Corbyn got the top job.

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour might pick a poor candidate but 1-6 looks like fair value.

    So I've gone for a pony on them here.

    A good candidate would be someone who had been involved with, and tested by, local politics.

    A bad candidate would be someone parachuted in due to links with unions or Corbyn, with little knowledge or interest in the local area.
  • So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
  • Good morning everyone.
    Might Ed Balls be interested in getting back into Parliament?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,925
    Perhaps Respect might remind Labour about Milne's belief that they are the progressive ones.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/03/galloway-melenchon-expose-gap
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    They are a scandal to democracy, typical Westminster control freaks.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 41,640
    Labour should hold the seat but with a reduced majority and with UKIP the main gainers. It could mirror the Ipswich by election in November 2001, when both Labour and the Tories lost vote share but the LDs saw a significant increase in their vote, only this time it is UKIP not the LDs who are the third party insurgents
  • The BBC (and the French) have lost the plot completely.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34600107

    "Most of them have fled conflict and poverty in Africa, the Middle East and Afghanistan and are trying to seek refuge across the Channel in the UK."

    So why can't they "seek refuge" in, oh I don't know, say, FRANCE??
  • So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    No it isn't. It would still allow Scots MPs to vote down laws that were supported by a majority of English MPs.
  • malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    They are a scandal to democracy, typical Westminster control freaks.
    Care to explain how it is a "scandal to democracy"?

    The opposition to EVEL appears to be nothing more than "oh those Tories are up to no good" (similar to equalising the size of constituencies). Any politically neutral person - English or Scot - who looks at the proposals (EVEL, boundaries) would agree that they are not only fair but necessary.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    BJO..You may not see this but I do hope things go well for you and your wife..when the old machine that is the NHS works well then it can be brilliant..
  • Mets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • The BBC (and the French) have lost the plot completely.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34600107

    "Most of them have fled conflict and poverty in Africa, the Middle East and Afghanistan and are trying to seek refuge across the Channel in the UK."

    So why can't they "seek refuge" in, oh I don't know, say, FRANCE??

    Or even England - after you've blown up the Tamar bridge, of course...

  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited October 2015
    After many decades of Meacher being the Labour MP, his constituency is still a total crapheap..I suppose the indoctrinated idiots there will vote for what they deserve...more of the same..
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Blue, precisely [on France].

    Mr. Blue [2], the English votes precede a general vote in the Commons including MPs not affected by English-only (or English & Welsh-only) legislation.

    Mr. Tyndall, indeed. The current set-up is indefensible, and the proposed changes do not remedy that.
  • So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    No it isn't. It would still allow Scots MPs to vote down laws that were supported by a majority of English MPs.
    A majority of English MPs might well approve a Poll Tax for Londoners, or a ban on Yorkshire puddings, or a presumption of guilt on men with beards &c &c...
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited October 2015
    Pulpstar said:

    What's the definition of a poor candidate in these circumstances? My Sensible Compass broke when Corbyn got the top job.

    Pulpstar said:

    Labour might pick a poor candidate but 1-6 looks like fair value.

    So I've gone for a pony on them here.

    She looked completely deranged after winning the by-election.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,208

    "BJO..You may not see this but I do hope things go well for you and your wife..when the old machine that is the NHS works well then it can be brilliant.. "

    A sensitive post from Doddy. It was worth waiting five years for
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Roger..we are happy to wait another five years for a sensible one from you...no hurry..
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    No it isn't. It would still allow Scots MPs to vote down laws that were supported by a majority of English MPs.
    Think some counting lessons required. How can 59 vote down 600+
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Roger, missed the message from Mr. Owls, but I second Mr. Dodd's sentiments and hope everything works out alright for Mr. Owls and his wife.
  • So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    No it isn't. It would still allow Scots MPs to vote down laws that were supported by a majority of English MPs.
    A majority of English MPs might well approve a Poll Tax for Londoners, or a ban on Yorkshire puddings, or a presumption of guilt on men with beards &c &c...
    And MPs from London and Yorkshire would be able to vote on those measures equally for any other area of England. They could not however vote on them for Scotland whilst Scots MPs could vote on them for London and Yorkshire. Therein lies the issue. Most people see that. Not sure why you don't.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    UKIP have no chance of winning it would be ridiculous for Farage to stand and invite more opprobrium.

    The UKIP hustings are on Saturday so you won't need to wait long to see who the candidate is. My money would be on John Bickley who came close in the by-election nearby last year, a very good man.

    Why not Francis Arbour, who stood at the GE (if he wants it, that is)?
    The branch members will select the candidate at a hustings on Saturday, no idea at the moment who has thrown their hat in the ring. I don't know Mr Arbour I'm sure he's a good candidate, my instinct is that somebody higher profile will get it

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. G, if there's an English majority of 58 for a measure, and MPs from Scottish constituencies all vote against, the measure would fall (as I suspect you realise).
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    They are a scandal to democracy, typical Westminster control freaks.
    Care to explain how it is a "scandal to democracy"?

    The opposition to EVEL appears to be nothing more than "oh those Tories are up to no good" (similar to equalising the size of constituencies). Any politically neutral person - English or Scot - who looks at the proposals (EVEL, boundaries) would agree that they are not only fair but necessary.
    It is a UK parliament and everyone in it should have an equal vote. If they want special cases have an English parliament rather than using the UK one as if it was England's. Devolve real power to Scotland not the current reserved powers.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. G, an English Parliament is necessary, though English votes for English laws would be an improvement on the current situation (sadly, this is not what is being proposed, either due to Grayling's incompetence or a desire not to provide a genuine measure to address the West Lothian Question).

    I can only assume the Conservatives are afraid of emasculating Westminster and are willing to tolerate an indefensible anti-English devolution settlement to keep Westminster as it is.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    They are a scandal to democracy, typical Westminster control freaks.
    Care to explain how it is a "scandal to democracy"?

    The opposition to EVEL appears to be nothing more than "oh those Tories are up to no good" (similar to equalising the size of constituencies). Any politically neutral person - English or Scot - who looks at the proposals (EVEL, boundaries) would agree that they are not only fair but necessary.
    Mr Cornish, I learned a while back that hoping for rational, unbiased debate with Scots Nats is nigh on impossible. Try talking to them about prescriptions, tuition fees, the Barnett Formula or the West Lothian issue without being subjected to abuse.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    After many decades of Meacher being the Labour MP, his constituency is still a total crapheap..I suppose the indoctrinated idiots there will vote for what they deserve...more of the same..

    RIP Mr Meacher, he leaves a wife and 12 houses.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149
    EV4EL - needs to be done properly, this proposal isn't that.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815

    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    They are a scandal to democracy, typical Westminster control freaks.
    Care to explain how it is a "scandal to democracy"?

    The opposition to EVEL appears to be nothing more than "oh those Tories are up to no good" (similar to equalising the size of constituencies). Any politically neutral person - English or Scot - who looks at the proposals (EVEL, boundaries) would agree that they are not only fair but necessary.
    Mr Cornish, I learned a while back that hoping for rational, unbiased debate with Scots Nats is nigh on impossible. Try talking to them about prescriptions, tuition fees, the Barnett Formula or the West Lothian issue without being subjected to abuse.
    I agree - malc is just here following orders to stir up nonsense.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    CR..L
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,815
    Sandpit said:
    Is this the Mr Heath that it was discovered doesn't pay any tax in the Uk ?

    Heathrow is a disaster - we should have asked the Chinese to build Boris Island a la HK airport - would be ready in 6 years.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    CR Labour are opposing it because someone, somewhere, told them they were the Opposition....came as a bit of a shock
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,584
    I know it's already been mentioned, but just to put a number on it - according to the 2011 Census, 3% of the voting age population of Heywood and Middleton were Muslims while the equivalent figure for Oldham West and Royton is 20%, which should make it an easier hold for Labour (assuming Respect don't get involved!).
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975
    "What is striking are the change figures between 2010 and 2015. Notice from the chart above how Meacher increased Labour’s share by more than 9%. This was in an election when nationally the party just went up a point. This suggests that Michael Meacher probably had a personal vote which it might be hard for a new candidate to attract whenever they by-election is held."

    I'm not sure that's the best reading of the figures. Meacher had been MP since it was created in 1997, and MP for its main predecessor, Oldham West, since 1970. Why should he suddenly have developed a personal vote in 2015 that by inference didn't exist in 2010?

    However, the fact is that Labour's vote did increase by 9% so if it's not a personal vote then it must be some other reason. The natural assumption has to be that Labour scooped up a large number of the ex-Lib Dem votes but that they themselves were part of a larger protest vote that's been floating in the constituency for a long time (the BNP polled 16.4% there in 2001, at the time of the Oldham riots).

    On that basis, a Corbyn-led Labour might be good for the party: it might reasonably be expected to hold onto votes cast against the government and its policies. The question is whether it can hold onto its former mainstream as well - and if not, who stands to benefit? And of course, while I dispute that the increase between 2010 and 2015 was a personal vote, that doesn't mean he didn't already have a personal vote, which will still be lost with his death.

    Perhaps as much as anything, what will be fascinating is Labour's process before the election is called: how do they choose a candidate, who will it be and what will that person represent, what platform will they stand on and what campaigning techniques will they adopt?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,208
    CR

    "So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws. "

    Like what?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 19,974
    TGOHF said:

    Sandpit said:
    Is this the Mr Heath that it was discovered doesn't pay any tax in the Uk ?

    Heathrow is a disaster - we should have asked the Chinese to build Boris Island a la HK airport - would be ready in 6 years.
    Why would we want them to build it, when we built theirs at Hong Kong just twenty years ago?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    Mr. G, an English Parliament is necessary, though English votes for English laws would be an improvement on the current situation (sadly, this is not what is being proposed, either due to Grayling's incompetence or a desire not to provide a genuine measure to address the West Lothian Question).

    I can only assume the Conservatives are afraid of emasculating Westminster and are willing to tolerate an indefensible anti-English devolution settlement to keep Westminster as it is.

    MD, what they want is Westminster to be the English parliament and also keep control of Scotland, wales etc. They do not want to go to a federal system as it takes away the power the covet. Hence they will do any contortion and put in place any crap process to hold onto their power. It is the reason the UK should be dead and buried.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    edited October 2015
    YouGov poll fails to find Farage toxicity with voters on EU referendum... He seems to put off Lib Dems and motivate Tories...

    'What about Farage, the Ukip leader who some claim will alienate wavering voters and scupper any chance of a victory for the Outers? Overall, we do not find much evidence for the claim that Farage will make large numbers of voters more likely to vote to keep Britain in the EU. Compared to voters who are not exposed to a Farage cue, those who are given this treatment are no more likely to vote to Leave. Broadly speaking then, it appears that voters have already priced in the so-called ‘Farage Effect’.'

    http://whatukthinks.org/eu/cameron-corbyn-and-farage-how-might-they-affect-the-eu-referendum-vote/
  • So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
    I've always suspected EVEL is really all about foxhunting. Doubtless there's an explanation as to why voters in Berwickshire shouldn't be allowed to vote on foxhunting, but voters in Islington should. I look forward to hearing it, or, even better, a link to a farmer stating that he or she considers a fox hunt a more effective form of pest control than a shotgun.

  • malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    No it isn't. It would still allow Scots MPs to vote down laws that were supported by a majority of English MPs.
    Think some counting lessons required. How can 59 vote down 600+
    You are right. You do need both maths lessons and comprehension lessons.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349

    Mets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Clearly your consumption of same has lead you to drop the "H" as the fourth letter.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,189
    Mr. Abroad, one suspects you're quite deliberately being the silliest of sausages.
  • So first byelection of last parliament was at Oldham E & Saddleworth and first of this parliament is at Oldham W & Royton!

    It will be interesting to see if Jeremy follows his predecessors and has quick byelection perhaps on 3 December or delays till February. I think 3 December.

    As this seat is near Heywood & Middleton where UKIP ran Labour close in byelection last year, I think again this will be a tight contest especially if UKIP choose John Buckley again.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392
    Roger said:

    CR

    "So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws. "

    Like what?

    It would stop a future Labour Minority government, with SNP support, from forcing measures onto England where they did not command a majority of English MPs.

    But I'm not sure if it covers budgetary measures, which was the biggest concern this year. That's probably deliberate, if so.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975
    DavidL said:

    Very safe Labour seat with a fairly equally split opposition making tactical voting unlikely. Looks like a rather dull hold to me. No doubt the Labour majority will be substantially reduced on the back of lower turnout. They will blame Meacher's undoubted personal popularity and they will probably be right.

    The bye election is probably more of a challenge for UKIP than anyone else. In the election they set themselves up as the main, if distant, challenger in a lot of safe Labour seats like this. They will be desperate to maintain that second place after a few dismal months since the election.

    Good point on UKIP. They really have no excuse for finishing lower than second or for suffering a drop in vote share. I suspect they'll succeed on both points unless the Lib Dems can make a rapid comeback but given the scale of the Yellow collapse (knowing very little else about the constituency), there doesn't seem to be any kind of LD base there so national issues apart, there's not much reason why they should. The main target for the Lib Dems will presumably be to retain their deposit this time; something which, ironically, probably depends on UKIP as much as anything and whether they can establish themselves as a serious challenger to Labour.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988

    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    They are a scandal to democracy, typical Westminster control freaks.
    Care to explain how it is a "scandal to democracy"?

    The opposition to EVEL appears to be nothing more than "oh those Tories are up to no good" (similar to equalising the size of constituencies). Any politically neutral person - English or Scot - who looks at the proposals (EVEL, boundaries) would agree that they are not only fair but necessary.
    Mr Cornish, I learned a while back that hoping for rational, unbiased debate with Scots Nats is nigh on impossible. Try talking to them about prescriptions, tuition fees, the Barnett Formula or the West Lothian issue without being subjected to abuse.
    Poor diddums , quivering behind the sofa imagining abuse. What a bigoted balloon , where is the abuse in saying I think their plan for EVEL is crap. Perhaps if you tried not insulting people and attempted a sensible discourse with them your inferiority complex would not delude you into thinking you were being abused.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,804
    tlg86 said:

    I know it's already been mentioned, but just to put a number on it - according to the 2011 Census, 3% of the voting age population of Heywood and Middleton were Muslims while the equivalent figure for Oldham West and Royton is 20%, which should make it an easier hold for Labour (assuming Respect don't get involved!).

    antifrank said:

    Labour should be very good value at 1/6 (with Ladbrokes). UKIP are lousy value at 7/2, though they should finish a decent second.

    However, I am reluctant betting on Jeremy Corbyn's judgement in picking by-election candidates. Given his picks for his office, he's quite capable of imposing on the constituency an on-the-run IRA terrorist.

    The market has moved this morning. Now showing 1/7 for Lab and 4/1 for UKIP. The latter would need a 17% direct swing I think on GE figures to take the seat. Tories a tad more.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 24,392

    CR Labour are opposing it because someone, somewhere, told them they were the Opposition....came as a bit of a shock

    Labour aren't coming back in Scotland. They think the only way they'll ever get back into UK government is by being propped up by the SNP, so they think this measure will hamper them in the future in advancing their programme.

    Personally, I think that's a mistake - it allows the party to be painted as anti-English.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    No it isn't. It would still allow Scots MPs to vote down laws that were supported by a majority of English MPs.
    Think some counting lessons required. How can 59 vote down 600+
    Heal thyself turnip ....

    There are 650 MPs.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 18,988
    JackW said:

    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    No it isn't. It would still allow Scots MPs to vote down laws that were supported by a majority of English MPs.
    Think some counting lessons required. How can 59 vote down 600+
    Heal thyself turnip ....

    There are 650 MPs.

    Pedant
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,637

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
    I've always suspected EVEL is really all about foxhunting. Doubtless there's an explanation as to why voters in Berwickshire shouldn't be allowed to vote on foxhunting, but voters in Islington should. I look forward to hearing it, or, even better, a link to a farmer stating that he or she considers a fox hunt a more effective form of pest control than a shotgun.

    Go knock yourself out

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080726235533/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf

    Shooting, by skilled marksmen, is probably the least cruel method of pest control. But it is seriously expensive to do it right and, in the event that it goes wrong (i.e. wounding not killing) it causes the most pain and suffering.

    Bloke with a shotgun is not an effective form of pest control.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,208
    I'd like to see Labour amalgamating with the SNP. For the SNP it would give them the clout of an extra 230 odd MP's. For Labour it would give them Nicola.....
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,925
    Charles said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
    I've always suspected EVEL is really all about foxhunting. Doubtless there's an explanation as to why voters in Berwickshire shouldn't be allowed to vote on foxhunting, but voters in Islington should. I look forward to hearing it, or, even better, a link to a farmer stating that he or she considers a fox hunt a more effective form of pest control than a shotgun.

    Go knock yourself out

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080726235533/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf

    Shooting, by skilled marksmen, is probably the least cruel method of pest control. But it is seriously expensive to do it right and, in the event that it goes wrong (i.e. wounding not killing) it causes the most pain and suffering.

    Bloke with a shotgun is not an effective form of pest control.
    A few years ago there was a series of interviews in The FT magazine with people who had unusual jobs, one of them was with a man who shot foxes. He had plenty of work.

  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349
    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    They are a scandal to democracy, typical Westminster control freaks.
    Care to explain how it is a "scandal to democracy"?

    The opposition to EVEL appears to be nothing more than "oh those Tories are up to no good" (similar to equalising the size of constituencies). Any politically neutral person - English or Scot - who looks at the proposals (EVEL, boundaries) would agree that they are not only fair but necessary.
    Mr Cornish, I learned a while back that hoping for rational, unbiased debate with Scots Nats is nigh on impossible. Try talking to them about prescriptions, tuition fees, the Barnett Formula or the West Lothian issue without being subjected to abuse.
    I agree - malc is just here following orders to stir up nonsense.
    Whilst @malcolmg is the Chief Turnip of the Black Pudding Race on PB he is .... and I have to steady myself in writing this ... entirely correct on this issue.

    Westminster is the UK parliament and all MP's should be treated equally. If Conservatives want EVEL then let them set up an English parliament and complete a federal structure for the UK.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,637
    dr_spyn said:

    Charles said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
    I've always suspected EVEL is really all about foxhunting. Doubtless there's an explanation as to why voters in Berwickshire shouldn't be allowed to vote on foxhunting, but voters in Islington should. I look forward to hearing it, or, even better, a link to a farmer stating that he or she considers a fox hunt a more effective form of pest control than a shotgun.

    Go knock yourself out

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080726235533/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf

    Shooting, by skilled marksmen, is probably the least cruel method of pest control. But it is seriously expensive to do it right and, in the event that it goes wrong (i.e. wounding not killing) it causes the most pain and suffering.

    Bloke with a shotgun is not an effective form of pest control.
    A few years ago there was a series of interviews in The FT magazine with people who had unusual jobs, one of them was with a man who shot foxes. He had plenty of work.

    Absolutely - I'd assume he's one of the "skilled marksman". But there aren't many who can do what he can do with the degree of accuracy that is needed
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 28,617

    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    No it isn't. It would still allow Scots MPs to vote down laws that were supported by a majority of English MPs.
    Think some counting lessons required. How can 59 vote down 600+
    You are right. You do need both maths lessons and comprehension lessons.
    Do you think we should start with Tax Revenue from. North Sea Oil
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    They are a scandal to democracy, typical Westminster control freaks.
    Care to explain how it is a "scandal to democracy"?

    The opposition to EVEL appears to be nothing more than "oh those Tories are up to no good" (similar to equalising the size of constituencies). Any politically neutral person - English or Scot - who looks at the proposals (EVEL, boundaries) would agree that they are not only fair but necessary.
    Mr Cornish, I learned a while back that hoping for rational, unbiased debate with Scots Nats is nigh on impossible. Try talking to them about prescriptions, tuition fees, the Barnett Formula or the West Lothian issue without being subjected to abuse.
    Poor diddums , quivering behind the sofa imagining abuse. What a bigoted balloon , where is the abuse in saying I think their plan for EVEL is crap. Perhaps if you tried not insulting people and attempted a sensible discourse with them your inferiority complex would not delude you into thinking you were being abused.
    You make my point nicely Malcolm.

    Your dichotomy is this: if the English were to vote on Scots independence you'd be gone in an instant, unfortunately for us too many of your countrymen realised they were better off suckling on our teats.

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 13,975
    JackW said:

    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    No it isn't. It would still allow Scots MPs to vote down laws that were supported by a majority of English MPs.
    Think some counting lessons required. How can 59 vote down 600+
    Heal thyself turnip ....

    There are 650 MPs.

    Although you can vote in both lobbies so it is technically possible to get a 600-59 division!
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Ukip aside the interesting thing for me is the number of careerists in Labour scrambling to replace Meacher, they'll be brushing up their dogma and messages as speak, knowing that if they get the nod they never need to do a proper job again.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,149

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
    I've always suspected EVEL is really all about foxhunting. Doubtless there's an explanation as to why voters in Berwickshire shouldn't be allowed to vote on foxhunting, but voters in Islington should. I look forward to hearing it, or, even better, a link to a farmer stating that he or she considers a fox hunt a more effective form of pest control than a shotgun.

    Fox hunting is a good example for EV4EL as it is clearly a devolved issue in the other jurisdictions and cannot be argued to have financial 'consequentials'. Other examples would be the drink-drive limit (recently changed in Scotland) or abortion regulations. In other words, social and moral, rather than tax and spend laws should be English only. Any provision should also allow for the situation where different parties may form the government in England v the UK as a whole.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    Maybe Ukip could be the recipient of Tory votes in Oldham now there is no chance of that course of action leading to an add Miliband govt... For some reason I can't get excited about the chance of a win in threat I did in heywood and Middleton (600 votes... 14/1... Ugh)
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,349

    JackW said:

    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    No it isn't. It would still allow Scots MPs to vote down laws that were supported by a majority of English MPs.
    Think some counting lessons required. How can 59 vote down 600+
    Heal thyself turnip ....

    There are 650 MPs.

    Although you can vote in both lobbies so it is technically possible to get a 600-59 division!
    Indeed, but still lose the division by 541 !!

  • FensterFenster Posts: 1,580
    I suspect Labour under Jeremy Corbyn will do enthusiastically well in Labour-heartland by elections. I would expect an increased majority.

    Very sad to see Michael Meacher pass away. An interesting note regarding Mr Meacher is that he wrote the foreword to David Ray Griffin's "The New Pearl Harbour" book months after he stepped down as Environment Minister.

    Griffin's book put forward the 'Let it Happen on Purpose' theory regarding the 9/11 attacks, and was probably the well-regarded conspiracy* book (there are some pretty frightening 'facts' in there).

    A brave move for a former minister of Tony Blair's USA-supporting government to put his name to a book like that.

    *It is probably unfair and demeaning to call it a conspiracy book. It's actually a well-explored expose of some very uncomfortable, unanswered questions.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,366
    JackW said:

    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    They are a scandal to democracy, typical Westminster control freaks.
    Care to explain how it is a "scandal to democracy"?

    The opposition to EVEL appears to be nothing more than "oh those Tories are up to no good" (similar to equalising the size of constituencies). Any politically neutral person - English or Scot - who looks at the proposals (EVEL, boundaries) would agree that they are not only fair but necessary.
    Mr Cornish, I learned a while back that hoping for rational, unbiased debate with Scots Nats is nigh on impossible. Try talking to them about prescriptions, tuition fees, the Barnett Formula or the West Lothian issue without being subjected to abuse.
    I agree - malc is just here following orders to stir up nonsense.
    Whilst @malcolmg is the Chief Turnip of the Black Pudding Race on PB he is .... and I have to steady myself in writing this ... entirely correct on this issue.

    Westminster is the UK parliament and all MP's should be treated equally. If Conservatives want EVEL then let them set up an English parliament and complete a federal structure for the UK.

    On a related note, for federation to really work, I think it should devolve London too. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and London. I don't want England carved up into regions, but seperating London would seem to make sense.
  • GasmanGasman Posts: 104
    FPT

    No, I don't regard a profession in those terms, but something much more. However we are not going to agree so there is no point in taking the discussion further.

    In your strike, what would you class as emergency cover? Immediate life and death situations I would hope but how about scheduled cancer surgery? How do you feel about being there for patients with renal failure?

    Just looking at it from the other side for a moment, I understand it costs about £500,000 to train a doctor. How do you feel about medical students being required to sign up to work in the NHS for, say, 6 years after qualifying or be recharged for the cost of their training?

    @HurstLlama

    I would class emergency cover as exactly that - the same level of cover that is there on a bank holiday, or at 4am. People there to deal with emergency admissions/deterioration of inpatients, but no elective work at all. Half-arsed industrial action was tried a couple of years ago - the only thing it achieved was to encourage the government to do whatever they wanted. I have very little to do with chronic renal failure so I don't know what dialysis units' bank holiday set-ups are, but whatever they are should be the same in a strike.

    Various numbers are thrown around for how much it costs to train a doctor- I've no idea if anyone really knows. Are you subtracting the value of the work done while training? After university junior doctors are working (very hard!) - it's not just training. Given that there is a monopoly employer in this country, making it so that everyone was trapped here (even if it was possible - how on earth would the rules work in practice) would mean that there would be no reason to pay the enslaved doctors anything.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,208
    CR

    "It would stop a future Labour Minority government, with SNP support, from forcing measures onto England where they did not command a majority of English MPs."

    I would have thought under those circumstances or even with a Labour goverment dependant on Scottish Labour MP's they would just overturn it. Sounds like a non starter..
  • Charles said:

    So-called English votes for English laws are nothing of the sort, alas:
    "These [English] MPs would also be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34599998

    Erm, yes, and? That is "English votes for English laws". Care to explain your problem?
    To be honest, it's as much as I expected. It gives English MPs a veto on UK legislation but doesn't make it any easier to pass English only rules from Day One - like foxhunting repeal.

    The truly astonishing thing is why Labour are opposing it. What do they have to gain?
    So, in other words, it's not English votes for English laws: it's English veto over UK-imposed onto England laws.
    I've always suspected EVEL is really all about foxhunting. Doubtless there's an explanation as to why voters in Berwickshire shouldn't be allowed to vote on foxhunting, but voters in Islington should. I look forward to hearing it, or, even better, a link to a farmer stating that he or she considers a fox hunt a more effective form of pest control than a shotgun.

    Go knock yourself out

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080726235533/http://www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk/mainsections/report.pdf

    Shooting, by skilled marksmen, is probably the least cruel method of pest control. But it is seriously expensive to do it right and, in the event that it goes wrong (i.e. wounding not killing) it causes the most pain and suffering.

    Bloke with a shotgun is not an effective form of pest control.
    I'm not reading through 220+ pages and you don't expect me to.

    I am however amused by your notion that a skilled marksman is more expensive than maintaining a pack of hounds and hunting horses and costumes.

    What your really mean is that you hate (or perhaps I should say despise) the notion of equality implicit in representative democracy, and long for a return to the days when the well-to-do not only could but were expected to abuse the poor. With, of course, nowadays the extra spice of racism all too often.

  • Even a repeat of Heywood and Middleton will be a moderate disaster for Labour. I can't see it, but I'd very much like it to happen.
Sign In or Register to comment.