Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » English votes for English laws (EV4EL) – the question is wh
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » English votes for English laws (EV4EL) – the question is whether Cameron is able to deliver
In 1787, a group of Americans came together and wrote a whole new constitution for their country from scratch in the space of four hot and humid months. Two and a quarter centuries later, it’s still going strong. True, they didn’t have the complicating factors of histories and traditions or established institutions that the UK has now but they did have to contend with other barriers to success, perha…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The problems for the Tories are that that this looks partisan and petty and the issue is one that it is quite hard to explain.
The real answer is for the Tories to use the post-referendum disarray in SNP ranks to seek to win more seats in Scotland.
Westminster doing two jobs doesn't work. All 4 nations need to have the same level of devolution and a federal administration handling macro economic and foreign policy.
It's pretty much the US model.
Only downside is that Wales will get more devolution than it wants, too bad.
Apart from making no sense, you're absolutely right.
Why should the English be the only Home Nation not to have it's own representation?
We all know the answer to that one and it is why I will hate the Labour party with a passion until the day I die.
I have never seen any Labour Govt/opposition take a decision wasn't in their own self interest, and screw the interests of the nation.
Instead of allowing the people of Scotland to have the privilege and impertinence of electing MPs to the House of Commons to make laws which affect England but not their own constituents (with whatever level of devolved powers to Holyrood as may be), they should be subject to the same laws as the rest of the UK.
There should be a referendum to make the people of Scotland choose between
(A) Abolition of the Scottish Parliament, abolition of the Barnett formula, and a unitary state,
and
(B) Full independence, with its own currency.
It's the sort of thing Francis Urquhart would have proposed.
Also, if it is really true that only the over-65s were heavily voting "No", then it will only be a matter of time before there is another referendum anyway. People have been talking about it as if the question is settled "for a generation" or "for a lifetime", but it only took Quebec 15 years after a 60% No vote.
I think you're completely discounting the rise of identity based politics.
An English Parliament somewhere not in London would be ideal. The Commons/Lords can then deal with only UK-wide issues. I do agree with what Ming said, which is that welfare shouldn't be devolved to ensure equal coverage.
If confronted by the forced choice of unitary state or independence the Scots would go for full independence by 2 to 1
I don't think the English parliament shouldn't be hosted in Westminster, as we shouldn't have two classes of MPs.
It would make Tory majorities considerably easier, but the reverse (that it would make Labour majorities considerably harder) is not true when you consider well over a third of non-English MPs are parties other than Labour.
Now wouldn't that be fun.
I'm not convinced it's worth the opportunity cost. With a well-regarded leader, Salmond crashing and burning and the LibDems eating their own heads, it would have been a great time to relaunch Scottish conservatism. There must be a lot of basically conservative voters up there who would vote Conservative if they didn't think the Tories were always treating them like the enemy.
So that is not the hard part. The hard part is finding a way to make it work.
Run England with UKIP through the scenario we've seen play out in Scotland with the SNP since they first had devolution.
Cameron gets his legislation through in spite of Labour or maybe wins GE2015. so now all Home Nations have the same powers and electoral system. UKIP do well in England's first election - because it's a protest vote like the EU and *doesn't matter*. How they do after that would be the big question, could they reproduce the success of the SNP and go on to win the following election, especially on the backs of more MPs at Westminster as a result of any successes leading the English Govt?
I think that the English are never going to get EV4EL unless it's prised from the cold dead hands of the Establishment.
Why do you think it is right that this should continue?
I do think that there will be a problem with the weight of England in the system, though - but I do acknowledge the @MorrisDancer Question (TM)
You can make a case for carving out London as its interests are very different to the rest of England. That would reduce England to c. 60% of the overall union.
To my mind the obvious next split would be a simple North/South divide. Perhaps we could use the old Britannia Superior/Inferior split with state capitals in York and Oxford.
We might need to work on the names, though ;-)
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/104973/the_daily_telegraph_saturday_20th_september_2014.html
Good article, I just wonder what the contingency plan would have looked like if Scotland had broken away.
Personally I'd go with the three Saxon kingdoms, Wessex, Merica & Northumberland. Capitals in Winchester, Oxford and York
Having watched another webcast of The Mayor in Bristol, search around for ways to avoid taking questions from the public & councillors at a scrutiny meeting, devolving powers is fraught with questions over scrutiny and accountability.
The rent seekers are out in force, pushing their pet projects, and the political parties are angling for advantage over each other hidden of course in high minded language.
Presumably you are keeping East Anglia as part of Mercia? That could be controversial!
Well it's just about possible, I guess.
I think a more likely scenario is the inertia one where this all fizzles out, the Scots get resentful and it all comes to a head after an EU referendum, when Scotland overwhelmingly votes to stay in Europe but an England majority vote out.
Then all of a sudden the EU will happily support Scottish independence, cue 2nd indyref resulting in an independent Scotland using the Euro.
1. The status quo is illogical (WLQ) and becoming more so.
2. EV4EL has no effect most of the time (because whoever wins Britain tends to win England), but when it does it produces gridlock (mutually hostile Ministers and MP majorities in England).
3. An English Parliament introduces hundreds of new politicians representing the same people as 90% of the current MPs - not a popular idea.
4. Devolution to regions struggles with the indifference to regions in much of England. Few in Nottingham, say, would want to be run by an East Midlands Parliament in, say, Derby, or vice versa.
5. English executive, Parliament and devolution with only residual powers in a British government, looking after defence etc., and only a residual (indirectly-elected?) British Parliament would be logical full devolution but so radically different to need a lot of discussion and persuasion.
I don't feel that strongly about it, since the proposed EV4EL won't make much difference most of the time, but it's genuinely unsuitable for a back-of-a-fag-paper decision. Whether it serves a partisan interest (getting lots of people to vote Tory) we shall see - it's got a good airing in the papers so tonight's and Monday's YG may be illuminating. I think support is broad but shallow - most people don't see it as very salient to their interests.
When the Scottish nationalists resurface, I look to have won a bet with one of their number about who would survive longer, Nick Clegg or Alex Salmond. I don't have access to my records right now, so could they make themselves known?
https://www.nationalgalleries.org/collection/artists-a-z/c/artist/julian-calder/object/queen-of-scots-sovereign-of-the-most-ancient-and-most-noble-order-of-the-thistle-and-chief-of-the-chiefs-born-1926-pgp-858
David Herdson talked about the "louder noises" from behind Cameron - could this be one of them?
As for point 3, again I don't accept it. The straight forward answer is to reduce the number of MPs at Westminster. The US runs fine with 435 Congressmen for 320m people as the bulk of governance happens at the state level. 120 mps at westminster would be plenty. 500 MPs to run England.
Point 4 I accept. Regional identity in England isn't very strong.
But I do fear that the political passion is now with the Right, and that does not exclude a desire for personal violence against those who disagree with them, even if that is no more than nostalgia for the days of the horsewhip. I daresay most of our silly-clever posturing right-wingers would like to repeal the Ballot Act and allow landlords and employers to control elections.
I'm sceptical that there's all that much opportunity cost for the Conservatives in Scotland or Wales. You'd have to be insanely optimistic to think that it could cost them ten seats there, even if the Scots and Welsh take offence at this idea, which is far from clear.
The English don't really care that much about it either. But Labour need to make sure that they have a clear basis for not being painted as anti-English. They need their own worked-through proposal fast. I'm amazed they didn't see it coming. It was bleeding obvious.
I really don't see much harm with EV4EL. The answer to Nick Palmer's second point is simple: opposing politicians should be less hostile to each other. Children of three are expected to play nicely together, so I hope that MPs could manage it too.
Re point 3: your idea is basically what I meant by option 5 - reduce Westminster and the British executive to a small number of people looking after common UK interests, which would be important (foreign policy, defence) but not involving a lot of people. I think it's a logical option, but a drastic change which almost nobody is current advocating (because the idea of scaling back the UK level to a rump is a big jump).
The worry is that we are reaching a political psychology like that of the Weimar Republic.
(a) It's complicated to explain, and
(b) Once Cameron has gained a bit of party advantage in the polls, no party will be that bothered about the unfairness aspect. Labour certainly isn't.
In the same way, no one from Rotherham/Rochdale etc will pay for their failings. The people in charge may resign (with a large pay-off) but they'll move on to another sinecure. There's always jobs for good party people in Quangos and Charities. And, of course, soon discussion about it will revert to be being dismissed as racist or as yesterday's news.
1. Labour should have called for one to begin asap, not after the next GE.
2. By allowing themselves to be manoeuvred into opposing EV4EL they have put themselves on the back foot.
3. This is ridiculous because in practice EV4EL would at its worst be a minor inconvenience for a Labour government.
4. That said, this looks to me to be a Tory pitch to UKIPers rather than anything else.
5. The Tories need to be careful that in doing this they do not entrench anti-Tory feeling in England and confirm themselves as an England-only party in the minds of Welsh and Scottish voters.
6. If Westminster reneges on the vow then Scotland will be an independent country within five years after SNP landslides in 2015 and 2016.
7. And who could blame the Scots?
If anything removing the workload from English only laws will allow Scottish MPs the full authority of Westminster for UK issues while having much more constituency time for locals.
:tumbleweed:
Labour conference now dominated by this - not elf and stools.
3. Of the 650 MP's, how many are just voting fodder? To fill their time, many of them are using their time and energies in being overpaid social workers for their constituents. I agree that they are doing valuable work but surely, they should be doing it closer to the constituents?
We are over represented at Westminster, and, Ok, it is a lot sexier if a PM can say he won a vote by a couple of hundred but you and I know, most of those MP's do not care a toss about the arguments and have been whipped through the lobby.
Why should we not consider using these mostly intelligent and hardworking people at a level of government where they can actually make a difference.
But we do need a solution because the status quo is stupid - the Scottish vote just reinforced this. Also fascinating is that Cameron has basically recast the Tories as an English party - we are suddenly the oppressed and our fringe neighbours are the oppressors. But at the same time he proposes a solution for England - a grand committee instead of a parliament - that none of the other nations would accept, so to the poor oppressed English he proposes a 2nd class solution.
We need a solution with depth. I want a federal UK with national parliaments (and have argued this for 20 years) and can't see how the size of England would be a problem providing that regional power is devolved within it. There is huge demand for devolution from London here in the NE, as there is in the NW and Cornwall. How about going back to a County Council and local authority model, but go with regions similar to Euro election seats (ie Yorkshire, NE, NW). The region looks after strategic planning, the local authority local planning and implementation.
Which is an odd thing to say: if they cannot, then frankly they should be thrown out as the incompetent party hacks they are.
We have had a coalition hold successfully together for nearly five years now involving two parties. Councils work successfully in coalition or as NOC all over the country. If the situation was to arise, the politicians should be mature enough to work together.
If our politicians are not mature enough to do that, then they are pathetic losers who should be nowhere near power.
English votes for English laws is a step in the right direction, but I still want an English Parliament.
I'm not supposed the likes of Miliband is trying to run away from giving the English anything like equality. Fratricidal weasel.
"privatise health delivery" as Labour did when in power, and now say they oppose? Can anyone credibly say Labour will roll back the use of private companies if we are unlucky enough to get them back in power? No, they will increase their usage, just as they did when they were in power last time.
"have free schools"; they are just an extension of the academy programme set up by Labour, and a natural extension of that policy.
Then you have the laughable situation with tuition fees: a promise not to introduce them in a parliament, but the legislation is passed in that parliament to introduce them in the next parliament, and now you oppose them.
No sign of principles anywhere there. Yet somehow these 'matters of principle' which were so flexible when you have power, are rigid when you talk about EVEL.
Not sure what crown she is wearing though, can't say I've seen that before.
Here is another shot with the 'normal' hat, although the background is less dramatic:
http://media4.onsugar.com/files/2012/07/27/4/192/1922398/56caa241952c6823_147861489_10.xxxlarge/i/Queen-Elizabeth-attendance-Thistle-Ceremony-Scotland.jpg
In practice there will have to be EV4EL - but no English executive or parliament. The government of the day will just have to make sure it has English support for any English laws it proposes.
I didn't have a vote, but the reality of potential redundancy would have had more traction with me than some airy-fairy promise of political reforms to benefit another layer of local troughers.
And no doubt, the same thing will happen were we to have a 2017 European referendum. For that reason, I suspect Ukip may struggle to overturn the status quo then.
I have also been amused by watching Tory Peebies ramping David Cameron as some sort of political colossus whose intervention alone kept the Scots in the UK. A reality check on this:
- we have no evidence whatsoever as to the effect of Brown's, Cameron's or anyone else's contribution. Anyone who says otherwise is ramping;
- during the final couple of weeks of the campaign, everyone forgot that polls have a Margin of Error. There was never a poll showing a YES lead outside that margin (3% IIRC).
***
However, ramp on, children. Don't let me stop you. And when you run out of rational arguments in support of your absurd position, just go for the personal abuse. It makes a certain type of personality feel good. (I have a sneaking regard for Malcolm G on this: knowing his position was wholly irrational, he invariably cut to the chase!)
This isn't what 'a Europe of the regions' means, nor is it a realistic plan, but this fear will create additional opposition to any plan for regional assemblies, or devolving more power to existing regional bodies.
One obvious way of addressing this fear is to put safeguards in place so Westminster can't be bypassed - no deals between the regions and the EU without the explicit consent of the UK Parliament. Another option would be to say no treaties can be signed affecting powers reserved to the regions without the consent of all regions, giving the regions an effective veto on further EU integration.
Of course, it's also possible to ignore opposition from Eurosceptics completely, but that would strengthen anti-EU sentiment.
In fact, finding a way of implementing "English votes for English laws" will be far more difficult, especially if it is intended that such a solution should be consistent with article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689.
We do need to look at 3 although if we had an English parliament, under 5 the Imperial parliament should be reduced to a couple of hundred or so. 5 would suit me, but you will note from my moniker that I am a bit of a radical on constitutional issues. (You one rightly pointed out that I would like to make the country ungovernable from Westminster).
Any solution needs to explicitly address the amount of government we have and how many politicians. Options of course include small, part-time representative bodies that only sit for a few weeks in the year, as I believe is the case with some US State assemblies. Also we need to ensure when a power is devolved, it stays devolved. So if we devolve education to hampshire, the UK (or English) governments should cease to take an interest - although you do need an audit function.
I also think we need to recognise English nationhood, although I would be happy of the English tier was pretty nominal. But someone needs to run strategic functions such as trains.
As David Herdson said, regional parliaments would be, in theory, the best option. However, there is one fatal flaw in the plan - the English don't want them. Even if England was divided into six rather than the absurd nine as at present - London, Kent and Sussex, Northumbria (lit. 'north of the Humber') Mercia, East Anglia and Wessex - there would still be a lot of tension, heartache and soul-searching before agreeing where everything should go. Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire, for example, as border counties between Wessex and Mercia, might have to be broken up - e.g. with Gloucester itself, which looks north to Birmingham, going to Mercia, but everything south of Hardwicke, which looks to Bristol, being transferred to South Gloucestershire to be included in Wessex.
Personally, I think the English would be willing to swallow an English Parliament (I would as I have said before prefer London to be left out, but I know Londoners don't feel that way). It would however have to be linked to extensive reform at Westminster. Might it be a golden opportunity to abolish the House of Lords entirely to keep the whole thing cost neutral - bearing in mind they have little to no say on most of the matters that would not be devolved (e.g. finance).
Nat 48.6
Labour 23.6
NZF 9.4
Green 9.6
IMP 1.5
MP 1.4
ACT 0.6
UF 1.0
NZCP 4.5
ALCP 0.3
Turnout expected to be 75%
The real criticism should be why has it taken 4.5 years for the Tories to bother doing anything themselves? Only one party is going to benefit from all this and that's UKIP.
Edin: There's no reason why option 5 (devolution to an English Parliament and executive with a rump UK government) shouldn't work. It could as you suggest be combined with a reduction in the number of MPs, though I think that's a separate issue. But option 3 (having both a full UK Parliament and executive AND a full English Parliament and executive) is a serious duplication of effort, however many people are involved.
Josias: I won't bother to argue on with you on the specific partisan issues, but I assume you'd accept that there is SOMETIMES a genuine issue with a binary choice (do something or don't do it) on which parties disagree. Such issues will be deadlocked on the occasions when EV4EL has any effect. Merely urging people to work together does not resolve genuine disagreement on binary choices - and I'm saying that although Broxtowe is (I believe) the only borough in the entire country to have an all-party Cabinet. Most of the time they work happily together. Sometimes they disagree, and no amount of goodwill makes them agree.
In reality, not many people in politics are in doubt that Cameron has suddenly embraced EV4EL as a means of trying to pacify back-benchers and recover UKIP votes. It's certainly helping the former, not sure about the latter but we shall see. The problem is that it will be seen in Scotland as a way of reneging on the promises there, as is clear from the interview with Gove in the Times today (he says the Scottish deal can't be delivered without EV4EL). Since the Conservative only have one seat there, maybe they don't care.
That's all from me for a while - train journey coming up.
1964, 1974 (twice) and 2010 - each time the winning party would either have lost without Scotland OR would have been in majority power on their own (2010). Meanwhile, 1951 was a dead heat in Scotland.
Figures to help (key general election results in Scotland by party)
1951: Con 35, Lab 35, Lib 1: gov majority 18
1964: Lab 43, Con 24, Lib 4 - Lab lead 15, overall majority 4
1974 Feb: Lab 40, Con 21, Lib 3, SNP 7: Lab lead of 9, no overall majority, Lab plurality of 5
1974 Oct: Lab 41, Con 16, Lib 3, SNP 11: Lab lead of 11, overall majority 3
2010: Lab 41, Con 1, Lib 11, SNP 6: Lab lead of 23. No overall majority, Con 19 short of overall majority (if Scottish MPs had not been present, that would have been an OM of 19 to the Conservatives (591 seats: 296 reqd for OM: Con would have led by 305 seats to 286))
Sources: British Political Facts pages 240-241 (1951, 1964 and 1974x2) and the BBC website (2010).
But a Tory revival in Scotland would be no substitution for EVFEL. Scots Tories and LDs voting for increased tuition fees in England is just as unnacceptable as Labour ones doing the same.
One characteristic of British history is that we have evolution not revolution. This is what Scots voted for- an evolving parliament rather than independence. The WLQ has been around for 18 years, another few will not make much difference, so it is more important to get it right than quickly.
There is no reason to lump all constitutional change into a single deal where disagreement on the HoL kills all progress on everything else.
You raised them as examples of 'matters of principles', and I showed that they are evidently not matters of principles for Labour, because Labour have supported them or similar in the past. Yet now you refer to them as 'partisan issues'?
ROFLMAO.
"I assume you'd accept that there is SOMETIMES a genuine issue with a binary choice"
Rarely, as shown by the above. Most binary choices are actually the result of party positioning, ignoring acres of middle ground on which agreement might be found. Often a party swaps around on their binary choice between being in power and out of power (Labour and the privatisation of the NHS, or tuition fees), or evolves to a different position over time (e.g. the Conservatives and gay marriage, Labour and nationalisation of services).
Agreement just requires professionalism from our politicians. Something you imply that they cannot manage, in which case they should be nowhere near power.
If you're still here, name some of these 'binary choices' in devolved powers that would be so troublesome, and which adult, mature politicians would not be able to negotiate.
It just requires a mind-shift away from being a party hack.
Then we have now. Where Tory donors are awarded contracts to be the exclusive provider of palliative care for dying children for a profit - at the lowest viable cost. Not supporting making a profit out of dying children? That's my matter of principle. What's yours?
For anyone following:
http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/live-stream-vote-2014-video-6085691
http://www.3news.co.nz/Video/3NewsLiveStream
http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/
Thanks,
DC
It should be noted that Miliband's latest wizard wheeze is a Hobson's Choice: he has already decided the right route to go down is decentralisation of power to regions (which he defines). A true 'constitutional convention' would look at all options, not just decentralisation.
He's rigging it before it even starts.
Much of what was in the Vow was in the earlier Scotland bill, and should be passed as part of the post referendum healing. The WLQ and EVFEL need answering, but that can wait to the next stage provided that there is another Vow, including Scotland, to do so.
Labour in Wales are a disorganised rabble who are unfit to hold public office. They make the Scottish Labour Party look like the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln. One of their current ministers has previously been forced to resign for misconduct, another of their (former) ministers had to be allowed to resign after he attempted to obtain restricted information apparently in order to discredit political rivals - there were rumours, and I am sorry to say that having the misfortune to know the man concerned that I believe them, that there was more to it than this - and Carwyn Jones, a decent and well-meaning man of comparative ability and integrity, is the only assembly member they have worth a damn.
Labour should not therefore be in power in Wales. Or should they? Well, sadly the other parties are an even worse mess. The Tories are led by a man who comes across as eccentric, to put it mildly, and they have never quite got out of the habit of talking down to the indigenous Welsh. They still seem to be an English party ruling or attempting to rule by the grace of being the cracach. This isn't totally fair, but as we all know perceptions matter in politics.
Plaid Cymru are a strange mixture. They include people who would look perfectly at home beside Nigel Farage, and others who salute pictures of Stalin every night. Leanne Wood is a mix of the two, but remains a bit of an unknown quantity and also a loose canon. It's difficult to see her as first minister.
The Liberal Democrats are actually (shudder) the most effective grouping in the Assembly, but they are very small and outside a few areas mostly in and around Cardiff will never make headway. A sad remnant of Wales as a Liberal fastness.
(continued)
So where does a non-Labour challenge come from? Realistically and surprisingly, probably from the Conservatives. Plaid rather shot their bolt by propping up a tired and unpopular Labour government in 2007, and they are really too divided to lead a government by themselves (although Rhun ab Iorwerth, if he becomes leader, might spark a revival after the fashion of Salmond). But in order for the Tories to thrive, they need to find a way to become Welsh. That means a leader who is sane, ideally speaks the language, and has no interest in going to Westminster.
Jonathan Morgan might be a possibility, but he's out of politics at the moment. Glyn Davies would have been ideal, but he's getting on now and is in any case firmly ensconced at Westminster. David Melding doesn't want the job. Darren Millar is out of the question - just google Darren Millar Genesis to see why.
So at the moment I am sorry to say I believe a Labour hegemony to be locked in to Wales. That is a bad thing for Wales. I worked briefly in a Welsh school, rather longer in a Welsh university, and while I am no fan of Michael Gove I would support him a thousand times before even mentioning any of his opposite numbers in Cardiff.
It is of course true that Wales has for some reason seldom produced top-class politicians, unlike Scotland. This may have something to do with the chronic maladministration and corruption of local government where politicians are created, or the small number of seats - many of them, well into the 1960s, dominated by local families who were staunchly Liberal, or indeed coal/steel unions who brought in outside candidates - but it is now hurting them badly.
To bring me to the point, I don't think an English regional parliament would face quite the same problems, so it's not a fair comparison. What it does do is expose the folly of devolving power solely for the sake of it.
And incidentally, ten years ago I thought the Welsh Assembly should be a full parliament on a par with Scotland. I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that for whatever reason, it is simply not fit to be so at the present time.
Perhaps we could give Wessex to the US as a nuke testing site? And Mercia to Ireland as punishment.
Forth Wuffingas, stuff the Saxon filth.
I want the best health care possible, free at the point of use. I do not care if the NHS provides it to me, or a private healthcare system. And as regular readers know, I've had recent experience of both.
F1: P3 starts at 11am. Apparently Vettel reckons Red Bull could spoil Mercedes' party. I don't think so, barring reliability problems.
Read labours manifesto - they committed to using private providers and taking out 20 billion in savings from the NHS.
Once again we see nasty labour using the NHS for propaganda
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Political-Punter-Betting-Politics/dp/1905641095/
:simple-response-to-simple-poster:
Also, polling on English devolution undertaken during the Scottish referendum debate found more than half wanted an English Parliament.
Mr. Rooster, np.
If you really believe that Labour only used private providers to clear backlogs, then Labour are taking you for a fool.
To repeat the point I've made before, even in an English only parliament there would be anomalies. Should MPs from the South West get to vote on HS2?
I suspect that Miliband and Burnham will thing differently this time round, but do not rewrite the past.