So .... devolution for England?

[Saracen]

I've been involved in local groups campaigning on planning and transport issues in London. I'm aware of the various policy documents (local, region & national) and how the governance works in London. Part of me like the idea of more people having a greater say but another part of me understands their flawed judgments since they haven't read the documents and just argue on feelings rather than facts.

Is regional government expensive? I was talking to a chair of one of the local Lib Dem groups who campaigned against the London one but didn't seemed aware of the costs and just assumed regional government was expensive without realising running cost (staff, building, etc) was just 2% of total budget cost.

And therein, I guess, lies the basic contradiction at the heart of democracy versus representative democracy. Prople want the right to decide on things like spending, yet usually lack the background and/or expertise to understand the details of what can be complex issues.

On the other hand, the more remote people are from actual decision-making, the less interested in, and invested in, politics they become.

It's hard to get people to engage with politics if they don't feel their representatives actually represent them, as sadly is the cases with the modern 'professional' politicians.

But for all that those are problems with UK democracy, it pales into insignificance beside the disgrace that is MPs for constituencies not affected by a decision having a vote in making it.

If, in a hypothetical future Labour government, they do not have enough English MPs to carry decisions that affect England ONLY, then they have no mandate to make those decisions by relying on Scottish MPs, who constituents aren't subject to that decision.

And that total cockup of a mess is a situation bequeathed to the current Labour party, and potential future Labour government, by the last Labour government, by the vested self-interested fudge that was the devolution settlement they came to in 1997. They've done it to themselves, and had 13 years in power, much of it with huge majorities, to resolve the West Lothian question, and they chickened out of tackling it. Well, now, post-referendum, it's back, with a vengeance to bite them, and so far, the Labour leadership's position is looking incredibly venal, with even Labour MPs and ex-Ministers saying that it's unthinkable for Labour to go into a general election in barely over 6 months trying to argue that Scottish MPs must be allowed to vote in Englush-only matters because it'll be bleeping awkward for a Labour party than wins the election (assuming it does) if it doesn't have the power to carry English-only legislation without them.

The Labour party's interests do not trump the people's interests, and if they try that line, putting party before country, in an election, they'll utterly deserve what Tory campaigning does to them on that issue.

Cameron has got Miliband's gonads in a vice on this one, because, of course, the Tory self-interest would have been for Scotland to go independent, thereby neatly removing that Labour element in Scotland from future UK elections. Yet, the Tories backed the union with Scotland in it to the hilt, despite it being to their disadvantage. Miliband would be an idiot to think that won't get pointed out every time a TV station points a camera vaguely in the direction of a Tory candidate, too.

The Tories will have a field day with this if Miliband doesn't get his act together. They have the moral high ground on this. They put country before Party, but if Miliband puts Party before country, both the Tories and every TV interviewer is going to make any senior Labour figure squirm in every interview.

Maybe this election campaign might be halfway interesting after all.

[Lucio]

I'm concerned by the idea of a Federal UK, if not for the acronym then for the inserting of yet another layer of government which will likely not be directly elected, but instead chosen by political parties. I also don't believe that a federal government makes any sense when you group roughly 80% of the voters in a single clump and the UK doesn't have a natural regional split between the county level and the country level.

[Saracen]

I'm concerned by the idea of a Federal UK, if not for the acronym then for the inserting of yet another layer of government which will likely not be directly elected, but instead chosen by political parties. I also don't believe that a federal government makes any sense when you group roughly 80% of the voters in a single clump and the UK doesn't have a natural regional split between the county level and the country level.

I don't think there's a chance in hell that an appointed government, chosen by political parties, would be acceptable to the people .... or that it'd work. After all, which MPs get to choose? Because if all Labour MPs in the UK have a say when they don't have a majority in England, we're right back to the initial problem.

We either need an entirely elected English Parliament, or Assembly, or whatever you call it, just like Scotland and Wales have, or we need current MPs for English constituencies sitting in a part time English Parliament at Westminster, say 2 days a week, or we simply need legislation preventing non-English MPs voting on English-only matters that are devolved in other regions, like education policy.

Either of the latter would also require ministers from English constituencies deciding English-only issues, again like Scotland or Wales, and again, could be drawn ftom existing Westminster MPs without adding cost or bureaucracy.

States in a federal system also don't need to be equal size. Consider Texas and California on one side, and Rhode Island on the other. Consider Germany on one side, and Greece on the other. One has long been a federal system, and the other is rapidly getting there.

[Saracen]

Which is all very well, but in practice proves rather difficult. If all monies gathered in Scotland were to stay in Scotland and the same practice in each of the 4 nations then this would be more palatable, but if monies gathered in each country are then sent to London to be distributed as London sees fit, and then MP's for one country decide to build something like a high speed rail link that goes nowhere near any of the other 3 countries but expect more of a share of the distributed monies to pay for it...

which is a ramshackle way of saying.. Each country's MP's should have a vote on anything that money raised in their country goes on, or the money shouldnt leave the country in the first place.

Which is what we had before devolution. So fine, I'll go for that. Let's go back to one country, one UK government, and scrap devolved assemblies. But it's not, we're told, what Scotland or Wales want, which is why we got devolved assemblies in the first place.

Or, alternatively, let's tear up the referendum and take Scotland entirely independent. That works, too.

What's not going to work is a system where a policy area, say education, is devolved to Scotland, Wales and NI and only members of devolved assemblies get a say in those policies, but in England, a Labour government can force through policies only by Scots MPs votes, against the wishes of the majority of MPs for those constituents affected by the decision.

Scotland wanted devoution so it could decide an increasing number of issues for itself. Well, fine. But it shouldn't expect to decide those matters for itself, and then decide them for England, too.

Scotland wanted to decide Scottish matters. I have no problem with that. But Scottish MPs, or rather, Scottish Labour MPs should then butt out of English-only matters .... just like SNP MPs do. Only, it shouldn't rely on a voluntary system, as with SNP not voting on English issues but only UK ones at Westminster. It should be legally binding.

And down here, if Labour get a majority of English MPs, and it could well do, then it doesn't need Scottish ones for English issues. But if it doesn't, and can't get a polucy through without Scottish MPs, then it's undemocratic to ram it through with them, as they don't rroresent people affected by the decision.

As for money, that's (relatively) simple. All MPs get yo decide a system for financing each devolved country. And they fo that, now, via the block grant and Barnett formula. Once funding is allocated to that region, that devolved assembly gets to decide how to apportion it. Once allocated, Westminster doesn't tell Holyrood how much to spend on health versus education in Scotland, or in education, how much to spend on free prescriptions or cancer care. And Scottish MPs don't get yo have the deciding bote on how it's spend in England either, it being none of their damn business since it doesn't affect their constituents.

It's simple democracy. Decisions affecting ONLY a devolved region are made by representatives for the constituents of that region, be it Scotland or England. Decisions affecting all, like defence, are made by all MPs.

What's not on is for Scotland not only to have it's cake, but to have English cake too. Scotland wanted devolution, apparently, and nearly independence. Fine .... but now so does England.

[Top_gun]

And therein, I guess, lies the basic contradiction at the heart of democracy versus representative democracy. Prople want the right to decide on things like spending, yet usually lack the background and/or expertise to understand the details of what can be complex issues.

This is why I wouldn't support a referendum on the EU given the complexity of its remit. I guess the interactions with some of your members has now deeply enforced my views.

As for the West Lothian question, it's a longstanding matter and I'm against any knee jerk reaction which does not give balance to political decision making. In principle, I support the notion that Scottish MPs have no right to vote on English matters but in practice I'm happy for the West Lothian question to be unanswered until an acceptable and fair solution is proposed.

[Saracen]

This is why I wouldn't support a referendum on the EU given the complexity of its remit. I guess the interactions with some of your members has now deeply enforced my views.

As for the West Lothian question, it's a longstanding matter and I'm against any knee jerk reaction which does not give balance to political decision making. In principle, I support the notion that Scottish MPs have no right to vote on English matters but in practice I'm happy for the West Lothian question to be unanswered until an acceptable and fair solution is proposed.

I agree the timetable is .... optimistic. Also agree it's better to get the right solution than a quick one. But it does, IMHO, need a solution.

The problem will be getting those with vested interest to agree on what constitutes "acceptable and fair".

It does seem to me, however, that if a solution can be found for, say, Scotland, it should not be beyond the wit of man to find one for England. It remains to be seen if it's beyond the wit of politicians, though.

Andrew Neil tackled Jim Murphy today on a tuition fee top-up vote in 2006, pointing out that Mr Murphy voted for the top-up to be increased, which affected English students, despite it not applying to Murphy's own Scottish constituents. The assertion made was that that vote only passed because of the support from 38 Scottish Labour MPs, whose action increased fees for English students, but nor Scottish ones.

Whether correct or not, I don't know, but it illustrates the point.

As for the EU referendum, it suggests an even deeper issue with the principle of democracy, which is that it's not a meritocracy. While, in theory, people voting having a detailed understanding of what they're voting for sounds great in principle, the problem is that in practice, you'd wind up with an intellectual elite running the place, with the vast majority disenfranchised.

The other problem, of course, is that if you lock 12 economists in a room and ask them to decide the economic merits of leaving the EU or not, you're likely to wind up with at least 15 different opinions .... and a fist-fight. And that's just the economics. It also comes from someone with a fair bit of personal experience of being locked in a room with a load of economists.

Having the expertise and experience to understand details and nuances sounds great in principle, but do we really want to tell people they need that before they're allowed to vote?

The main argument, in my view, for an EU referendum is, like Scotland, to settle it, whichever way it goes, for "a generation". Without that, it has no mandate from the people, which simply leaves an open goal for UKIP.

[SeriousSam]

At its heart this debate is about what the future nature of democracy should be in the UK. Now as has already been highlighted this poses some difficult and divisive questions. Taking the recent referendum on Scottish independence as an example, this has shown that there are some very significant undercurrents which can impinge on an individuals decision making processes. It was no surprise that Glasgow, which has some of the worst deprivation in the UK voted a majority yes result. A lot of them feel disenfranchised by a perceived Westminster elite lording over them. So independence was a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak existence, something the nationalists used with great effectiveness to garner increased support. Do I blame them for being "duped"; categorically no. Am I uneasy about the potential implications; very much so yes.

To me it comes back to the question of "why are we here?" In many ways you could liken our society to a hive mind, albeit one riven by disagreements about a great many subjects. For example earlier today I read with interest about the latest Mars probes sent to investigate its atmosphere. Yet if you read the comments on the BBC a number of individuals bemoan the cost of such ventures when there is so much hardship in the world. That I find such views as an anathema to what it means to be human does not negate the fact that they have a point. However, such sentiments are born of the "here and now". It does not take into account the the future implications of such research and how it could improve our understanding of our own planets atmosphere. Something we may be very grateful for in the long term...

So, getting back to the subject at hand, how do we reconcile the ultimate dichotomy of democracy; equity vs. suitability? Honestly at this point I don't have a workable answer. I have ideas but am more than aware that its complexity virtually negates an individuals ability to solve the problem. Not least as perception is regarded as reality by a large proportion of people, especially politicians. To me as a scientist I regard such a view as rank stupidity, yet as a philosopher I understand that how we see the world is a uniquely individual experience.

Ultimately I feel that our future depends on becoming singular of purpose, yet free and open enough to allow individuals to seek meaning within that construct. Why? because without them you have a hole in your being, into which the unscrupulous can trick you into filling with pointless needs and wants. What they should be is a whole other debate. However, it is something we will have to come to terms with in the long run. Currently the basis of our society is a giant Ouroboros consuming everything in its path and leaving destruction in its wake...

[peterb]

Hard to believe that it is less than a wek since the referendum. I don't think any of the three main party leaders covered themselves in glory following the knee jerk reaction to just one opinion poll that put the 'Yes' campaign slightly ahead. Yet as a result of that, Cameron, Milliband (and the other one.... oh yes, Clegg) made promises on behalf of Parliament that they are not in a position to deliver.

Farage (rather astutely) stated his position and distanced him from that decision, and subsequently stated that as he hadn't signed up to that, he wouldn't feel obliged to honour it. I think he sees his eye on political advantage, but may resonate with a lot of English voters.

But given that knee jerk, I rather wish the vote had gone the other way because it would have been a clean break. Yes, there would have been negotiations, but there were defined parameters (and it would have sorted the "WestLothian" question.)

But it didn't, and having stuck a plaster on the sore to do a quick fix, that sore is now starting to fester - and left untreated could turn to gangrene.

Personally I think it iniquitous that a Scottish MP should have a vote on legislation that has no impact on the constituency they represent and scandalous that it is still unresolved after over 40 years, although perhaps that reflects the complexity of the issue, and the undeniable fact that it has been in the Labour Party's interests not to resolve it - and it seems Milliband is already trying to find a weasel way round the issue by trying to de-link constitutional reform with devolved powers.

So to additional regional assemblies. Politicians rarely relinquish power, so I fear that additional English assembly would ad another layer of bureaucracy on top of the Westminster one, although that might work for Wales. One thing is certain, it will increase the level of taxation to pay for the bureaucrats to run it.

It has been proposed that devolved powers go on to a regional level within a country with devolved powers extending to everything except national defence and foreign affairs - similar to the US model.

There are dangers with that. The regions would be much smaller than the States that comprise the United States. There is a danger that it would promote inequality - for example a region with a high level of unemployment would have a large social security bill,which it would have to meet - either by borrowing or raising tax. Answer - for someone living there and in employment - is to move to a lower tax region. And that is easy to do in a small country like England. It would also make a mockery of a "National" Health service - unless that was a power retained by Central Government.

So the whole thing is a dog's dinner. Constitutional reform is - as was quoted yesterday on the radio) a bit like porcupines having sex - it should be done very slowly and very carefully - but our leaders have boxed themselves into a corner and hasty legislation leads to bad legislation - and this is one area where bad legislation just isn't acceptable.

Cameron and Milliband (and the other one) - you really have messed this one up - big time.

[Dareos]

Ik9000, i did reply to your post but its been lost in the ether. Saracen and Peterb have pretty much covered what I was going to say, and far more succinctly.

[crossy]

This is a fascinating thread, and so nice to have one without the Yes campaign folks diving in to whine and grouse (yes, I voted "no" - deal with it!)

I'm of confused nationality - born in England, but have been in bonnie Scotland so long that I could probably take the citizenship test. So I guess I count as the token Scot (EDIT: sorry dareos - didn't spot your post - so that's two foreigners here!)

Folks up here don't seem to be able to understand what the big flippin' deal is over the "West Lothian Question", one opinion I've heard being "If they're no doing stuff that's English only, could they not be spending more time on stuff for the UK anyway?". And remember that this WLQ has been going on since Victorian times.

Folks speak of a "bribe", but it's only such if it's delivered. And at the moment we're hearing a lot of hot air about how it's got to only be delivered once England's got it's settlement worked out. I didn't realise that campaign promises came with small print. Remember that the "bribe" is merely bringing forward powers that have been suggested were coming anyway - so it's a pretty thin bribe.

The points being made about London are good ones - from the view here it's one of the four places that have a strong case for devolution. The other three being Northumbria, Wales and arguably Cornwall. But there's been some comment that the "regional assemblies" perhaps wouldn't be a good solution - e.g. the example I saw being that Norfolk tax payers may not be impressed with a regional seat in Norwich. And I love the joker who suggested a "Region of the Roses" with Yorkshire and Lancashire sharing one authority!

I hear all this hand wringing about the "break up of the UK" - well folks that's going to happen if something isn't done pretty sharpish. And would a federal UK be such a bad idea - after all it works seemingly well for the Swiss and the Germans - maybe we should be studying their ways? And for another view on the FedUK I found this article "Dear Scotland" quite interesting. The UK needs to evolve or die.

Ignoring Ed Milliband's foot dragging, here's what I'd do:
1. Immediately stop Scottish Labour MP's from voting on devolved issues. That deals with the WLQ and dampens the fire of UKIP and the other right-wing loonies;
2. Grant the "increased devolution powers" promised in the "Vow" to Holyrood. That keeps the SNP (and their Green hangers-on) quiet and at least salvages some credibility for Westminister.
3. Raise a study group to look at bringing Welsh devolution into line with Scottish one - either as it is now, or post-vow;
4. Raise a second study group - cross-party - to look at increasing English democracy/accountability. One place I find myself in agreement with Cameron is that English empowerment is not something you want to rush into - it needs to be carefully planned and studied;
5. Offer London some form of devolution (probably akin to current Welsh one);
6. If study group in #4 comes back with regional assemblies then take those onboard instead of the current House Of Lords. We need two chambers, but the regional ones probably are more "democratic" than the House Of Lords, and there'd be Labour and LibDem support for scrapping the HoL.

Unfortunately the politicians seem to have misunderstood, thinking that they can bluff and bluster and return to the status quo - this is not the case. If Holyrood doesn't get the promised extra powers then it's easy to forsee an SNP elected first minister promising another referendum for independence - one that this time will definitely go their way. And once Scotland leaves, there's going to be substantial pressure for Wales to follow suit.

Although I didn't vote for the SNP, I've got to say that they're actually doing a pretty reasonable job up here. Only area of major disagreement being that they've continually frozen council tax, which means that council-provided services have had to be cut.

[santa claus]

When I fill in a census form I declare myself to be British. I am fed up to the eye teeth with all this Welsh, English, Irish and Scottish lark. We are (supposedly) united and in my view that's the way we should be governed.

Devolved government is just another layer of talking shop which only got credence from Westminster's increasingly myopic London-is-the-be-all-and-end-all attitude. True, government of the united kingdom needs reform; but devolution was the pressured response of the beleaguered desperate to hang on to votes. It's hopeless.

We need an end to the two party shouting game and an end to the useless House of Lords. The people of the UK have changed; there is no room for ridiculous old traditions. Old traditions can't deal effectively with new problems.

We'll be forever bickering like kids unless we have a political system that works as one and stops all this pulling and pushing in this and that direction. We don't need West Lothian questions we need UK answers.

I'm going for a lie down.

[Saracen]

I agree with pretty much all that, Crossy. I certainly agree with the general tone, and with points 1 to 4.

The only thing I'd add is that in this world of devolved powers, and/or a federal UK, then points 5 and 6 are matters for an English Parliament, not. U.k one. If England wants power devolved to English regions, fine. If it doesn't, fine. And how Scotland handles it is for Scotland, not England.

The principle seems clear to me - either we're a unified country and we all decide all matters together, or we aren't. And implicit in that is that given that England is 85% of the population, if the bulk of the view of England is for a, for example, Tory government, then that's what the government is likely to be.

If some regions don't like that, and want a devolved government, then fine. But then, if it's a devolved matter, it's a devolved matter for everyone.

Folks up here don't seem to be able to understand what the big flippin' deal is over the "West Lothian Question", one opinion I've heard being "If they're no doing stuff that's English only, could they not be spending more time on stuff for the UK anyway?". And remember that this WLQ has been going on since Victorian times.

If they don't understand, ask them how they'd like it if we Scots MP had no say over, say, free prescription charges in England, but English MPs (I mean, MPs for English constituents) had a say on presciption charges in Scotland, and that despite Scottish MPs voting 100% for free prescriptions, they were implemented anyway because of votes from English MPs.

It's pretty simple. If it's a devolved matter, ONLY those affected by a bit of law get to vote (via elected representatives) on that bit of law.

/nit-picking mode on

The West Lothian Question dates from Tam Dalyell in 1977 in a Commons debate on devolution.

The constitutional issue it refers to does, yes, date from Irish Home Rule debates in the late 1800s.

Edit - Willian Gladstone, 1886. Thanks, Wikipedia.

[Saracen]

When I fill in a census form I declare myself to be British. I am fed up to the eye teeth with all this Welsh, English, Irish and Scottish lark. We are (supposedly) united and in my view that's the way we should be governed.

Devolved government is just another layer of talking shop which only got credence from Westminster's increasingly myopic London-is-the-be-all-and-end-all attitude. True, government of the united kingdom needs reform; but devolution was the pressured response of the beleaguered desperate to hang on to votes. It's hopeless.

We need an end to the two party shouting game and an end to the useless House of Lords. The people of the UK have changed; there is no room for ridiculous old traditions. Old traditions can't deal effectively with new problems.

We'll be forever bickering like kids unless we have a political system that works as one and stops all this pulling and pushing in this and that direction. We don't need West Lothian questions we need UK answers.

I'm going for a lie down.

I used to be British. Now I'm English.

Agreed, I'd rather we were a UK, working as one, but that's not what Scotland, Wales or apparently NI want. So, should we force those in that 15% to live by our decisions, because the other 85% want it different?

Getting rid of all devolved assemblies is one solution to all this, but I suspect, and maybe our token Scot crossy or one of the 'proper' () Scots could comment, if we attempted to dissolve all devolved assemblies and revert to a single Parliament in Westminster it wouldn't .... erm .... go down well in Scotland, Wales or presumably NI.

Arguably, if Labour hadn't set up devolved assemblies, the discontent might have just rumbled on. But, right or wrong (and probably right, IMHO) they did. It's now a done deal, a fait accompli, and trying to unpick it would cause major ructions. Hence, analogies about genies and bottles.

So, the situation is what it is, and we need to come up with a solution that's fair to everyone. Which means, somehow, the WLQ needs addressing. And pretty quickly.

I do, however, agree with Crossy that linking it to the referendum promise is unacceptable IF that means delaying Scottish devolution. The promise was unconditional.

If, however, the "link" means trying to get the WLQ resolved on the same timetable, fair enough, as long as it's resolved properly.

[ik9000]

I used to be British. Now I'm English.

I'm British. I am a mix of English, Scot, and Welsh (in no particular order). I have family all round the UK and am proud of that. I disagree with devolution full stop, though I understand the sentiment behind it. A Federal system does seem a fairer way, but the execution I don't think will work. Our regions are too small and i think federalism will increase inequality rather than solve it.

But I would keep an unelected house of oversight. It brings balance. Elected officials are too busy worrying about re-election and vote pandering. I am far more in favour of a house of expertise (emphasis on expertise rather than cronie-ism) and it helps to slow down and moderate rushed and poorly executed laws from being passed. Think about the recent rebuttals to various laws the lords have batted back as "try again".

I do, however, agree with Crossy that linking it to the referendum promise is unacceptable IF that means delaying Scottish devolution. The promise was unconditional.

A politician keeping a promise? Shocking! . And why is this promise so set-in-stone? Was it really made that concretely and without caveat? Constitutional reform should follow due process. Noob-headed politicans making rash promises should be exposed as the dimwit they clearly are and made to follow proper procedures. Whinging SNP or not.

as long as it's resolved properly.

But that will take time! It can't be resolved properly in an artificially compressed time line.

[Saracen]

....

But that will take time! It can't be resolved properly in an artificially compressed time line.

Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Cameron supporter. I didn't vote for him last time and probably won't next time. But on this, the principle behind the constitutional issue of the WLQ, he's dead right - MPs whose constituents aren't affected by a law have no place voting on it.

And if Labour don't come up with something concrete on it, they're going to have fun trying to defend the notion that they xan ram through policy in England without a majority of English voters by relying on Scottish MPs whose constituents aren't affected because of devolution. So yeah, Ed, go to a general election telling the English that devolution and self-determination on devolved issues is fine for Scotland, Wales and NI but the English don't deserve the same.

And consider, Ed, you got just 10 out of 197 seats in London and the South last time, and you need to win quite a few back if you want Number 10. Do you REALLY want to try that, by telling us that you heed Scottish MPs to implement yoyr polucies in England if you fail to get a majority down here?

Here it is, Ed.

If you get a majority in England, you don't need Scottish votes for English issues. If you don't get a majority in England, you've got no democratic mandate for imposing polucies against the wishes of the people affected by them. Which means, in England, you'd have to do what governments elsewhere in Federal systems do, and negotiate a compromise.

But if you really want to try to win back those seats by telling the voters you don't care what the actual voters think, you just want to impose your views using Scottish MOs to do it, go right ahead. You've already alienated the Scots to the point that you, personally, are less trusted by Scots than a Tory PM (yeah, Cameron polls higher on trust by Scors than than leader Miliband does, believe it or not), so go for the jackpot and see how nany English voters you can alienate, too.

@IK9000 .... it can't be done, or rather, done properly, on an artificial timeline, but it cannot just be booted into long grass by the Labour leadership either, who really want to avoid even discussing this, to the point where they have to make even prmiises on points of principle, until after the election when they can safely ignore it for years, hoping we'll forget and it'll go away.

We don't need to have detailed implantation of a solution in a few months. We DO need to have agreement on resolving the problem, even if it takes more time implementing it. After all, as was pointed out earlier in thus thread, this issue is not new. Politicians have been discussing it since the century before last. How much flipping time to they need? Another 120 years?

[SeriousSam]

I have a strong suspicion that the mooted "mansion tax" will get a lot of people thinking, even those without a £2M house; "once they've wasted that money am I going to be one of the ones next on the list for their moneygrubbing". As someone mentioned earlier the coming general election looks as though it will be rather interesting, though not necessarily in an entirely good way.