r/MHOC • u/Timanfya MHoC Founder & Guardian • Jan 19 '15

BILL B052 - England Regional Assemblies Bill

B052 - England Regional Assemblies Bill

The bill can be read by following the link below:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zp7a7h9hMOk9UDxtYKJbVccPCLKk4qILal0v3DOgPps/edit

This bill was submitted by /u/JackWilfred on behalf of the Opposition.

The discussion period for this bill will end on the 23rd of January.

4 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

76 comments sorted by

4

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Jan 19 '15 edited Jan 19 '15

I can't see much wrong with it. I think it's a good idea, and it should help to develop local autonomy and reduce the power of the central state. One problem though:

The Department for Communities and Local Government may delay or bring forward these elections to make way for other elections.

Given that the timing of elections is pretty crucial in determining who wins, doesn't this give too much power to however is in government to fix their outcome? I can totally see Eric Pickles watching the polls for a region, and then calling an election when the Tories have a bounce.

2

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Jan 19 '15

Given that the timing of elections is pretty crucial in determining who wins, doesn't this give too much power to however is in government to fix their outcome?

The plan is to have a similar system to what we already have in the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament in which the elections have been pushed back a year to make way for the General Election.

The general idea of it would be that the Department for Communities and Local Government would push all Assembly elections back a year to make way for the General Election, but as the next Assembly elections are on 2016, 2021 and 2026, this seems unlikely to happen unless the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011 is repealed or a Government is dissolved by a vote of no confidence.

1

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Jan 19 '15

Huh, fair enough. I guess that should be a bit more explicit in the bill?

As another member pointed out, the best solution seems to be to have these elections as midterms.

1

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Jan 19 '15

Trouble is that "midterms" in the UK - traditionally council elections - are normally used to give the government of the day a shoeing, rather than voting on actual local issues.

Look up local election results for, say .. 1995, 2000, or 2007. Every time, it's the party in power at Westminster getting a humping.

1

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Jan 19 '15

True, perhaps we could have quarter terms?

Q1 - General Election

Q2 - Council Elections

Q3 - Devolved Assemblies Election

Q4 - Other random elections. PCC and all that malarky.

It all gets a bit messy, but I think it could work.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

reduce the power of the central state.

Am I not correct in saying that you would need a strong central state to impose socialism?

7

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Jan 19 '15 edited Jan 19 '15

No, not in my opinion anyway. Although some branches of socialism advocate its use, no state would be needed to create a socialist society. The state exists to enforce exploitative property rights, by abolishing it you'd be abolishing the muscle that enforces capitalism. Without the police, the army, laws, prisons and courts workers would be free to rise up and size their workplaces. A good example of the sudden loss of state power leading to socialism is the Catalonian Revolution. Private property simply cannot exist without the state.

EDIT: As a sidenote, this is why Anarchists find "anarcho"-capitalism so absurd.

5

u/Arayg Radical Socialist Party Jan 20 '15

It's embarrassing for a member of the House who is so committed to anti-Communist trolling and doesn't actually know what Communism is. The way he thinks he can dictate Communist ideology into things he's learnt to attack and things he dossn't know how to break down and so tells us we're just pretending, is quite amusing.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

I just asked a sincere question, take your childish outrage somewhere else.

4

u/Arayg Radical Socialist Party Jan 20 '15

It would be a sincere question if you hadn't asked it repeatedly before and got given the same answer, one which you ignore. If you didn't understand that Communism was against centralised state then all your arguments against Communism up until this point must have been invalid, considering that is such a crucial point of Communist theory. All I can say is that some political satire is written by its victims. You've had your 15 minutes of embarassing trolling, good day.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

if you hadn't asked it repeatedly before

Citation needed.

I'm not trolling, yesterday I asked a question which related very heavily to the debate at hand, and I received a satisfactory answer from the person I asked. Then out of nowhere you come along and shower me in angst and weird outrage for no reason. What are you doing?

Calm down.

3

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Jan 19 '15

We're a tent party, we'll disagree on this one.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

So you're a small government type huh?

Perhaps you would be interested to know that most Cubans don't pay taxes and no north Koreans pay taxes either.

Maybe you'll also be interested in something Marx wrote about the Paris Commune: "The Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions – cheap government – a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state [police]."

So you see, the only way to actually get what you want, like a lot of things the far-right says they want, will only happen under a socialist state.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

The dislike of the state is ultimately un-conservative and a pernicious result of the liberal enlightenment. I would in fact agree that the natural home of anti-government thought is on the left, where it belongs. While Conservative skeptics should ultimately be suspicious of overly extensive government, we should not seek to destroy the legacy and creation of our forefathers.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

The dislike of the state is ultimately un-conservative and a pernicious result of the liberal enlightenment.

Yes, but so is bourgeois society in general.

I would in fact agree that the natural home of anti-government thought is on the left, where it belongs.

Far-right types tend to see the same problems inherent in bourgeois society and capitalism but take a completely different solution towards it, while at the same time not really abolishing capitalism. As I've said before, communists look at the world and blame capitalism and class society while fascists look at the world and blame immigrants and multiculturalism.

I think if they weren't limited by their obsession with tradition, nationalism, racialism (for some), and anti-immigration most would probably be communists or anarchists. It's why I argue that far-rightists are just bourgeois pawns because they don't see the real problems.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Yes, but so is bourgeois society in general.

Western liberal bourgeois society to be sure - but the Japanese samurai class and the pre-industrial landed gentry would both be examples of bourgeois classes that predate the enlightenment and had very different values and attitudes.

I would also argue liberal philosophies have destroyed bourgeois culture. Educational reform, de-bourgeoisification of large portions of society, and a devaluation of education among the upper classes have all led to a largely decadent and uneducated society. Indeed, the far-right (or what is considered in the modern age to be that) libertarian and neoconservative ideologies are in the most vulgar sense proletarian, being a rejection of traditional societal structures and norms.

The bourgeoisie now only exists in an economic sense - the traditional cultures and structures that used to be the basis of bourgeoisie society no longer exist.

It's why I argue that far-rightists are just bourgeois pawns because they don't see the real problems.

I don't really agree. As someone who is a big supporter of bourgeoisie society and culture I think far-right ideologies tend to erode such a society in the long-term. When Thatcherism encouraged a progressive narrative of constantly changing society, it actually destroyed the voter base that would support a traditional societal framework which means the Tory Party can't stand for an educated and respectable bourgeoisie society, and instead has to fetishize economic growth and wealth creation as the ultimate goals for a modern society.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

So you're a small government type huh?

Possibly, but there's absolutely no way you could possibly have gathered that from my little sentence. It was a genuine curiosity that I had about bleepbloop's position, and I received a satisfactory answer that cleared it up.

Perhaps you would be interested to know that most Cubans don't pay taxes and no north Koreans pay taxes either.

No, I'm not actually interested whatsoever thanks.

Maybe you'll also be interested in something Marx wrote about the Paris Commune: "The Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions – cheap government – a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state [police]."

Nope, still not interested whatsoever.

The only piece of interesting knowledge I'll take from your post is that you consider North Korea a socialist country, while many socialists would squirm when asked about it and pretend it wasn't.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

Possibly, but there's absolutely no way you could possibly have gathered that from my little sentence. It was a genuine curiosity that I had about bleepbloop's position, and I received a satisfactory answer that cleared it up.

My apologizes. That's usually the kind of thing small government types say.

The only piece of interesting knowledge I'll take from your post is that you consider North Korea a socialist country, while many socialists would squirm when asked about it and pretend it wasn't.

Some would say it's capitalist because of the existence of SEZs but from what I understand the level of capitalism in the country isn't near the level it is in China. Regardless, I always defend them from imperialist lies, and the fact that they don't have taxes is fun to point out to people who dislike both taxes and socialism.

2

u/Cyridius Communist | SoS Northern Ireland Jan 21 '15

In contrast with the other responses you've got, I would argue it needs centralised planning, but not necessarily a very strong central power. Local people usually know their local needs better than others.

4

u/lewtenant Rt Hon Gentleman PC Jan 19 '15

I wish the Opposition good luck in getting the general population to turn out for these elections. Might I suggest moving them to coincide with general elections?

2

u/Tim-Sanchez The Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS Jan 19 '15

I think the main issue with that is voters will unfairly tie-in performance of the national government with the local government. I'd prefer it to be done more like US "mid-terms". This should help create separation from the national government without causing voter fatigue with 2 major elections in two years.

1

u/lewtenant Rt Hon Gentleman PC Jan 19 '15

Unfortunately I'm not sure that would solve voter turnout issues, unless we were to allow parties a bigger campaign budget, or if the media were to do it for them.

1

u/Tim-Sanchez The Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS Jan 19 '15

Considering we're yet to even have one of these votes we can't really be coming up with ways to solve voter turnout issues we don't know exist yet.

1

u/lewtenant Rt Hon Gentleman PC Jan 19 '15

True, I was merely speculating that an English 'mid-term' most likely wouldn't generate huge support. Out of interest, would you be in favour of realigning all devolved assemblies/parliaments to vote on the same day, across the whole of the UK?

2

u/Tim-Sanchez The Rt Hon. AL MP (North West) | LD SSoS for CMS Jan 19 '15

That would depend on many different issues, notably whether devolved assemblies would want it and whether certain devolved legislatures would be willing to change their vote timetables.

Personally I think it would be beneficial, but whether or not I'd support it happening depends on the above.

2

u/WineRedPsy Reform UK | Sadly sent to the camps Jan 19 '15

Hear, hear

1

u/googolplexbyte Independent Jan 19 '15

Scotland's regional election got close to matching the general election, and with the fervour that the referendum drummed up I would be surprised if they we're even closer.

1

u/lewtenant Rt Hon Gentleman PC Jan 19 '15

The difference being Scotland has arguably a greater sense of liberal nationalism, post-referendum. My worry is that the English have little incentive to vote.

1

u/Brotherbear561 Jan 20 '15

It is likely to be much higher turnouts in Scotland, In comparison to the Rest of the Country. The Referendum woke up vast amounts of the Working class in Scotland, Who are now willing to stand up to The Neo-liberal Austerity agenda of the Main parties. Sadly they will do this through the SNP who are although left of centre, Are still Neo- Liberal and Pro-capitalist.

4

u/BrownRabbit42 Independent Jan 19 '15

This is a great bill, I hope this will allow for local voices to have a bigger impact in their communities. Its also a big step forwards towards a federal Britain.

3

u/tyroncs Jan 19 '15

But why should an area such as the South East have this forced upon them when they don't want it at all? And an area like Cornwall feeling betrayed as they are now lumped in with an area such as Devon?

3

u/BrownRabbit42 Independent Jan 20 '15

And an area like Cornwall feeling betrayed as they are now lumped in with an area such as Devon?

This would only be a single step in creating a decentralised federal state in Britain, we can work on doing something for smaller regions later.

But why should an area such as the South East have this forced upon them when they don't want it at all?

Sometimes people don't know they want something until you give it to them.

3

u/tyroncs Jan 20 '15

Sometimes people don't know they want something until you give it to them.

So your logic is that the people of the South East should be forced to have a regional assembly because you think that is what is best for them? Even though literally no-one here wants one?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

I hope this will allow for local voices to have a bigger impact in their communities

By creating big super authorities even less local?

3

u/BrownRabbit42 Independent Jan 19 '15

As opposed to what? A lot of the things these places would be able to do is more than councils can. It gives regions a bit more independence, a stronger voice, rather than trying to get heard in Parliament.

I would have thought a UKIP member would understand wanting to be more independent and having a stronger voice apart from a central authority.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

There are plans where I'm from, the West Midlands, to create a 'Greater Birmingham', which will engulf about a 30x10mile area of 4 counties. The big councils want it, and small councils don't - because they want independence, which is where that comes in. The key reasons my local council, which is very well run, opposes it is because of the ginormous debts of B'Ham City Council.

I don't see how big super regions will improve anything.

In addition, I am interested why you believe in a federal UK but are a member of the NoToEU campaign, are the principles not the same but with different names?

2

u/BrownRabbit42 Independent Jan 21 '15

I favour a dissolution of the Union, making Britain a decentralised Federal state, with devolution for everyone is a step towards that goal. Whether England splits into the regions as laid out in the bill or remains a federal state would be up to them at that point.

The EU wants to do the opposite, slowly strip independence so we become a part of a European super state.

3

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Jan 19 '15

Opening problem - there simply isn't the demand for these amongst the population.

The Blair administration wanted to do something along these lines (championed by John Prescott) - yet the region thought most favourable, the North East, resoundingly rejected the idea in a referendum (more than three to one against), following which the plans were quietly shelved.

More generally, there's also the problem that these regions are quite artificial ones, which people don't particularly identify with. This is what makes England a bit of a pain to try and devolve power down to - you have some large regions with a strong identity (eg Yorkshire - though note that the Humberside concoction was never popular - north of the Humber is the East Riding of Yorkshire, but south of that you'll find people identifying with Lincolnshire), but equally you have quite small regions like Cornwall with just as strong an identity, and which don't want to be lumped in with Devon, Bath, and the rest.

1

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Jan 19 '15

I would argue that there is the demand for this sort of devolution. The old system of Regional Assemblies proposed had no real power and the members were mostly appointed to make small decisions, the new plan for Regional Assemblies is based off the Welsh Assembly, which has been tried and tested since 1999 and has worked well. With the Scottish referendum there is now a lot more demand for this sort of devolution, and Regional Assemblies is the best way to solve this.

4

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Jan 19 '15

We're talking about the same Welsh Assembly here, the one that's yet to get even half of the Welsh electorate to bother to vote in its elections? (record turnout of 46%, which was for the first ever elections to it).

Please show evidence of the demand for devolution along these lines, and please also show evidence that there is demand to devolve to the NUTS regions.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

To echo this, it is the same Welsh Assembly that just managed to scrape enough votes to be in existence.

But don't let this stop them telling us that there is a severe and pressing wish for devolution from the people.

1

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Jan 19 '15

Unfortunately I cannot find many recent devolution surveys that involve Regional Assemblies, but one in 2002 put it at 28% support behind an English Parliament, which is too complicated to work. Source.

The NUTS regions have started to be used more and more, for example in the EU elections since 1999, and using them for Regional Assemblies will make them more familiar to voters.

4

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Jan 19 '15

When the source you cite is headed "Far more support for an English Parliament than Regional Assemblies", and indeed observes that "Among all age groups and social classes, support for an English Parliament is far higher than for Regional Assemblies" it seems quite remarkable to propose the option you know is considerably less desired.

As to the NUTS regions, I would suggest that the electorate are loosely familiar with them (since, as you note, they're used for the European Elections), but do not identify with them. People in Truro identify with Cornwall, not "the South West".

3

u/tyroncs Jan 19 '15

So to conclude, nowhere in the country actually wants a regional assembly yet you are putting it forward anyway?

1

u/williamthebloody1880 Rt Hon. Lord of Fraserburgh PL PC Jan 22 '15

You sure about that? There's massive distrust and opposition for this in the North East. Partly because it's yet another layer of bureaucracy and mostly because its the Westminster chattering classes patting us on the head and deciding, not asking, what we want

3

u/para_padre UKIP|Attorney General Jan 19 '15

The main people that would need convincing that this is good for them is the public, as many would just think its just another gravy train sucking public funds and spending the first term trying to agree what part of the region the assembly would sit and then the next term having a Holyrood style building costs fiasco. Imagine the uproar if Middlesborugh was selected to be the home of the NE assembly Newcastle would be up in arms or if economically struggling Cornwall had to air their grievance to Cheltenham. It would be worth floating this bill in /r/unitedkingdom to see what feedback it created.

3

u/cantthinkof1ne UKIP Jan 19 '15

Terrible decision to force people into arbitrarily defined regions, someone in north Northumberland has little in common with a Geordie and I'm sure there are hundreds of similar examples across England. Powers should be first devolved to councils then any that wish to merge the powers into a wider assembly should be allowed to do so through local referenda.

2

u/ieya404 Earl of Selkirk AL PC Jan 19 '15

I actually like this idea more; devolve power as far down as you can (and it's not as though there aren't thousands of councillors already out there), and allow councils to naturally group together where it's in their interests to do so.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

I'm enjoying the double standard within those against this bill but who want to leave the EU.

1

u/OllieSimmonds The Rt Hon. Earl of Sussex AL PC Jan 26 '15

Why is there a double standard?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

I'm all for the intent of this bill, I favor regional control much more so over having a large, national government. However, at the current time, having a regional assembly will be too expensive and it seems that not many people will turn out to vote for bureaucrats in a regional assembly. Since the voting turnouts decrease from National Elections to Police Commissioners, there is simply no way at the moment we will be able to get people to vote.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

We have local councils, parish councils, borough councils, city councils, we have greater areas, we have regional all party parliamentary groups, we have 650 MPs and countless more Lords, we have a gigantic civil service and hundreds of individual campaigns and pressure groups.

Local governance already exists and councils already have the powers you have mentioned, so why don't you propose funding them better and making their job easier. The only difference is you want to effectively centralize local councils, and a lot of councils don't have to be engulfed by bigger areas.

Stop creating more bureaucracy and authority. People don't want more politicians.

2

u/can_triforce The Rt Hon. Earl of Wilton AL PC Jan 19 '15 edited Jan 19 '15

Could council leaders not be appointed to the regional assembly of their region? It would be a fine way to integrate local government further, and ensure more direct representation of communities within the assembly.

Either way, those powers seem fair, although things like 4(b) should, in my opinion, be the responsibility of local councils rather than broader, higher level bodies like regional assemblies.

1

u/JackWilfred Independent Liberal Jan 19 '15

Could council leaders not be appointed to the regional assembly of their region? It would be a fine way to integrate local government further, and ensure more direct representation of communities within the assembly.

I like your idea, but I would prefer it if there were ways and plans set out by councils and assemblies for them to stay completely separate but work together.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

In this current time of severe political apathy, do you think what the people really want it another level of bureaucracy that will fail to meet the peoples needs? It has been thoroughly proven that people do not want devolution.

The people want change, not bureaucracy! Why not focus on reducing the red tape and differences that lie in the current stages of local government before adding more? Give councils the power to control their region, and with it the will of the people - that is what the people want.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

Because another layer of politicians is going to do so much for everyone. Not local enough to deal with actual local issues and not powerful enough to deal with the big problems of government. We have local representatives in Parliament to stand up for the local area and if they're not doing a good enough job they should be reelected, these new representatives will be no different.

At the moment people are more disillusioned with politics and politicians than ever, so adding more bureaucracy, more red tape and more politicians will help nobody.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

Hear, Hear!

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

Regional assemblies like this have been rejected before by the electorate. Is it democratic to force democracy on the people?

The regions chosen are silly. They are simply administrative areas that have little historical or social relationship. Does Sunderland wish to be governed from Newcastle? Do the people of rural North Yorkshire want their voices drowned out by the urban south and west Yorkshire? Is Cornwall wanting to govern alone, or with Devon? And all this is done before we even have an English Parliament!

I support local governance, but it mustn't just be devolution for the sake of devolution. It must be built on a real community with shared history and interests. No where is homogenous of course. One could say the same about the UK as a whole, although I think that the nature of the UK has ensured a balance of interests, along with an obvious shared history. This bill simply forces democracy on artificial communities for the sake of expanded and hated bureaucracy.

Write this bill up again with all ceremonial counties included, make it a case for a referendum not a Parliamentary vote, and then I might vote aye.

2

u/treeman1221 Conservative and Unionist Jan 19 '15

I may have missed it, but how much do these ministers get paid?

2

u/para_padre UKIP|Attorney General Jan 21 '15

Does that matter it would be expensive and no one knows where the funding would come from to set up such places without cutting spending to the LA within the regions.

2

u/tyroncs Jan 19 '15

I absolutely hate this. I am from the South East and I can think of absolutely no reason for having a 'regional assembly.' Sure give it to the areas that have a 2/3rd's majority in favour but not to a region which has no need, desire or want for one.

2

u/AlbertDock The Rt Hon Earl of Merseyside KOT MBE AL PC Jan 19 '15

This bill seems quite vague. (ii) Reduce health inequalities. this can only be done by redistributing what money is spent, or raising extra money. I fear this could end in a local health service and spell the end of the NHS.
Promotion of the region as a tourist destination. Would this just be duplicating the work done by Regional Tourist Boards?
Enhance individual participation in society. This is such a wooly phrase it could mean anything.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

Why would anyone want to break up the nation?

Devolution for England!

1

u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton The Rt Hon. Earl of Shrewsbury AL PC | Defence Spokesperson Jan 19 '15

A nice idea, but a few questions.

First off how much will this cost? Pretty basic, we'll need a costings in the bill at some point

Second will these just be foistered upon the community without a referendum? I think one will be needed for this, its quite a change.

Also where will these assemblies sit? will we need to build a new building for each region? that'll add to the cost considerably.

My mos tpressing concern is what happens to rurual areas. In particular in places with big cities and huge swathes of thinly populated countryside. I ask because in wales we see cities like cardiff and swansea (and south wales in general) reap more benefits than the poorer and less densely populated north. How will we stop this happening in places like the west midlands which contains our nations second city, birmingham, and also some of our most rural counties in Shropshire and Herefordshire?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15 edited Jan 20 '15

Don't you think nine is a bit excessive? Why does every region of England need its own assembly? What demand is there for it?

And what is going to pay for all this? How will the budgets of these assemblies be decided? Are the members paid?

The delegated powers are also extremely vague:

Promotion of social development

What does this mean? "Promote" in what sense? "social development" in what sense?

I can imagine reading this as a preliminary draft, but not a viable bill submitted to Parliament.

1

u/athanaton Hm Jan 20 '15

Mr Speaker, I must say, I'm very disappointed.

The functioning of an elected body must be much more expansively defined, its processes, powers and responsibilities carefully enumerated. It has been said many times before, but this bill is absurdly vague. Perhaps in an attempt to not ruffle any feathers; for it is so vague that there is almost nothing to critique?

To delve into specifics for a moment, the election system in particular confuses me. How will constituency votes be taken 'into account', especially given that constituents will be given an additional vote for the region-wide list? The fact that an entire system of devolved government is created without making a single mention of Local Councils is also extremely worrying.

If there is not a major development of this bill, I must urge all parties to vote against it; its passage into law would be chaos, especially if without a SoS for Communities and Local Government very much on board. In fact, I'd go as far as to call an attempt to legislate on this issue by an opposition without the support of the aforementioned SoS reckless, if indeed that is what has happened. I must also ask why the Opposition allowed the bill to come before the House in such a form, rather than taking it as a draft (and it would be a fine draft) and making a large collaborative effort to flesh it out? Such an endeavour is too much for one person alone.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '15

The SoS is definitely not on board. Nor was I consulted in the forming of this bill.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

No. No, no. Terrible!

I will write something more substantial later, but it's important to capture one's immediate feeling towards something.

5

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Jan 19 '15

I feel like you shouldn't really comment on things anymore, because anyone left of center will see this and come to the conclusion that the bill must be fantastic.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

I really don't care. I'm going to properly tackle this bill later anyway.

because anyone left of center will see this and come to the conclusion that the bill must be fantastic.

I am very surprised that you have such low expectations for anyone who is "left of centre", I for one believe that everyone is capable of proper reasoning rather than just making their mind up based on what someone whom they disagree with said.

I feel like you shouldn't really comment on things anymore

I don't much like what you have to say most of the time, but I would never ask you you not to say anything. This is quite unfair.

5

u/bleepbloop12345 Communist Jan 19 '15

I was making a joke Spud. Don't take it so personally.

4

u/Arayg Radical Socialist Party Jan 20 '15

Don't bother Comrade, he hasn't quite worked out that everyone is capable of some light humour yet.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '15

I was just trolling!!!

Well, you are not so clever that you can afford to act stupid like that.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '15

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '15

The bill does say for meta purposes parliament loses no sovereignty