And another point: if the Labour government only used private health resources to clear 18 month waiting lists, then why did Burnham open up the Hinchinbrooke contract to private providers in July 2009, and continued even after all public providers had dropped out of bidding in early 2010?
If you really believe that Labour only used private providers to clear backlogs, then Labour are taking you for a fool.
The Labour party did far more than use private providers to clear backlogs (itself largely a myth as 90% of the waiting list reduction was by funding better elective services in existing premises). That is why I left the party 12 years ago.
I suspect that Miliband and Burnham will thing differently this time round, but do not rewrite the past.
I'm not rewriting the past - all that you both say is true. But it DID start with the intention and practice of reducing waiting lists. Its just as time went on (and soft influence went on) that my lot decided that more and more and more private contracts were the right approach. I don't recall anything quite as unappealing as letting people profit from dying children though. And cancer care is next.
Its not a Labour or Tory partisan issue. Private healthcare have used lobbying and donations to promote their agenda with the decision makers and this is where we end up. That the Labour party managed to promote such appalling right wing policies is part of the reason we became unpopular. However, I do have to ask Foxinsox if supporting the LibDems - voting through a privatisation agenda worse than ours was - is the obvious response to leaving Labour for the same policy? Isn't this the problem with politics now - all 3 parties have basically the same policies on too many things?
Ever wonder how we managed to coalesce all these aryies to apply an agenda of a massive private health industry looking for profits? Again, it's not cash in envelopes or illegality, but it is corruption - of ideas - of most politicians. Buying influence indirectly over time is legal. But depressing. How long until we end up like America where politicians rely on donations and need them ever higher?
You are the one using dying children as ammunition in your political rants. Classy.
Is that as opposed to the widespread use of raped children for party political purpose on these pages?
Couldn't Labour + Lib Dems + SNP + some Tories vote it through parliament?
Fantasy
I remember people saying that there was no way the Tories wouldn't get rid of the dodgy boundaries as well.
My feeling is Labour will block any legislation until they get in after the general election and then pass the extra devolved powers to Scotland without resolving the WLQ.
Why is the Tory party giving the same deal to England, Scotland and Wales seen as favoring the English? It is favoring each of the 4 (NI as well) equally. It is a pro Welsh, Irish. English and Scottish policy.
NZTV Projects National 60 Labour 33 Greens 13 NZ First 11 Maori 2 ACT 1 UF 1 So National a fraction short of majority, but can do a deal with ACT and UF and Maori for majority
That accounts for the urban seats which will finish declaring last and lean more Labour
To their credit they have voluntarily enacted the solution for many years.
Absolutely and that's the key point. The Scots don;t mind England having its own parliament. They are getting home rule and more money, after all.
The only people in the way of a deal that suits England and Scotland are the labour party. They are the deal blockers.
No-one is proposing an English parliament. And as yet we have not been told what the Tories mean by EV4EL, so we have no idea whether it suits England or not. What's more, nobody has actually bothered to ask England about any of this. I suspect that when people here and elsewhere say "England" what they actually mean is "Me".
I thought it was established that nothing's going to happen before the election? David Cameron confirmed that when he said that he has already delivered increased devolution in this Parliament (the 2012 Scotland Act), and it would be for the next Parliament to take the issue of further devolution forward.
Alex Salmond also confirmed this when he said that Cameron had confirmed there would be no second reading of a new bill by March 27th on the grounds that it would be "pointless". Pointless obviously because second reading or no second reading, there is no chance of any bill passing before the election.
A question, will English laws need to be confirmed by the house of Lords? If not, and given it cannot veto finance bills, does it have any kind of role post EV4EL? If yes, will it be EL4EL (English Lords, etc.)
Is this a step to an essentially unicameral system?
The Scots vote to stay in the union and the response is to make their 59 MPs second class ones. Eh?
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.
In what way are they second-class MPs? It would simply place them alongside MPs from England, Wales and N Ireland in being able to vote on legislation that affects the whole UK but not in devolved matters. Of course, they can't vote on those matters affecting their own constituents either as those are devolved to Holyrood but as I've said, I regard EV4EL as a temporary but essential step towards genuine devolvement at a regional level. Giving English MPs two jobs compared with others who have one isn't ideal but it's a lot better than the current situation.
Why do you need this (rather unusual) temporary step? If the goal is genuine devolvement at the regional level, why not just do genuine devolvement at the regional level?
Because the support probably isn't there for it and aiming for that would probably prevent any change from taking place. It's essential in my view to make good on the promise to Scotland before the GE - leaving it until afterwards is both a hostage to the fortune of the election's outcome, and takes all the momentum out so it'll be harder to pick up afterwards. Scots could easily (and probably rightly) charge those leaders with making promises in bad faith.
But if further Scottish devolution is to happen then it's equally important that the disparity re England is addressed at the same time. We know Labour is keen to foot-drag on it and to the extent that it wants further devolution in England, it's talking about partial solutions, both in area and in powers. While EV4EL is not as robust a solution as regional parliaments (or an English parliament, for that matter), it is nonetheless comprehensive in its application.
and then pass the extra devolved powers to Scotland without resolving the WLQ.
They would have to put that in their manifesto. How do you think that would go down in England?
No they won't, they'll put a proposal to sort out the WLQ in their manifesto and then completely ignore it when they get in. A bit like for the EU Constitution referendum pledge.
Mr. Observer, point of order: no politician has advocated an English Parliament. It's my preferred option, and that of many Englishmen. Still room for Farage to make hay if he stakes out an English Parliament as UKIP policy.
You are the one using dying children as ammunition in your political rants. Classy.
Some things shouldn't be profit making. Dying child as a profit stream? That's what's really classy....
Do you object to the following making a profit Ambulance builders Drug companies Cleaning product manufacturers Bandage and dressings manufacturers Builders Xray machine manufacturers Etc, etc, etc.
As I understand it David Cameron has no choice but to offer EV4EL. Without that offer, a deal to extend the Scots more powers and money simply wouldn't go through parliament.
Couldn't Labour + Lib Dems + SNP + some Tories vote it through parliament?
Not sure Cameron would keep his job though in that case.
They wouldn't do it even if they could. They don't want Devomax, and they can kill it and blame it on the Tories. The Tories don't want Devomax, and they can kill it and blame it on Labour. Everybody wins - it's a perfect example of positive-sum bipartisan cooperation.
ACJohnstone Looks like Labour leader David Cunliffe is about as helpful for NZ Labour as Miliband is for UK Labour, so candidates have to do the hard work themselves
With respect to all these debates about EV4EL and WLQ, Charles Moore in Telegraph has eloquently laid out why none of it is likely to happen. Certainly not before the GE and then who knows after that. This fits the way I see things at the moment. We have, IMHO, "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I wonder how many back bench MPs are right now deciding that they will not support further powers for Scotland unless the EV4EL is passed? I wonder also how the Lords might view that?
Making promises to Scotland whilst screwing over England is really not bright this close to a UK election. And of course it is entirely possible that the Lords could (and should) completely scupper 'The Vow' if they feel it is further eroding the democratic balance between the 4 nations.
Another thread about this EV4EL drivel , where is the thread on Cornish V4CL or Manchester V4ML or taking it to its extreme 26 Acacia Ave V4 26 Acacia Ave laws .
A question, will English laws need to be confirmed by the house of Lords? If not, and given it cannot veto finance bills, does it have any kind of role post EV4EL? If yes, will it be EL4EL (English Lords, etc.)
Is this a step to an essentially unicameral system?
Leaving aside all the issues of the unworkability of EV4EL (still no answer to my question below on pork barrelling), i don't see that there is any issue in relation to the Lords. The Lords are the Lords. They don't represent any constituency beyond the disenfranchised, so there is no democratic legitimacy question for them, so there are no consequences of any individual being English/Scottish/American/Martian...
I'd have thought they would blame the three party leaders who failed to deliver. Trouble is, one has one MP in Scotland, and one has 40 MPs.
The Scots seem a fair minded bunch. They don;t mind an English parliament, or EV4EL, in return for their autonomy. They don;t fear English 'nationalism'.
TVNZ are now projecting that John Key will remain Prime Minister of New Zealand with National polling just above 47% and the party winning 60 seats. With the ACT and United Future leaders holding their seats and Maori bringing a couple to the table, it looks like a comfortable 64 seats for the governing Coalition.
Labour are projected to win just 31 seats and with the Greens and NZ first their bloc would have 56 seats in the new Parliament.
Mr. Observer, point of order: no politician has advocated an English Parliament. It's my preferred option, and that of many Englishmen. Still room for Farage to make hay if he stakes out an English Parliament as UKIP policy.
Does anyone think an English Parliament focussing mainly on Health and Education, probably with PR as well, would be anything other than dominated by the Left? Do the Right REALLY want that?
Voters opinions are influenced by clear simple concepts. They don't even have to be true to work eg Milibands energy price freeze is a popular message even though it's a crap policy that actually screws up prices. EV4EL has not been front of mind for any voters until the last few days. But it is now and that's all that counts.
The Tory offer is simple. We want English MP's only to vote on English laws.
Labours is we're not popular in England but we'll still going to be in charge.
You are the one using dying children as ammunition in your political rants. Classy.
Is that as opposed to the widespread use of raped children for party political purpose on these pages?
I have problems with when that is done, yes. For instance the people pinning the blame for Rotherham and Rochdale etc on Labour fail to notice that the Oxford cases occurred in social services run by a Conservative-led council. That indicates it is more than a Labour disease.
I've been consistent in saying we need to learn what went on so we can stop it happening again, and not look for quick and easy scapegoats. That will take time, but IMHO it's worth it.
Sorry, the numbers are changing all the time - National up to 48.5% and technically in a majority on their own. Poor result for Labour and the Greens though Labour have picked up the Napier electorate as a strong Conservative showing at the expense of National has got Labour home.
This is not a simple issue of removing the rights of non English MP's to vote on English only issues. England elects most MPs and it generates/spends most of the money. It is quite possible for English MP's to pass legislation that is detrimental (budget wise) to the rest of the UK. Westminster is a UK parliament and each MP is equal.
If England wants to have a devolved parliament representing English only issues, then set up a separate entity. Northern Ireland and Wales can also have more devolution. Westminster can be the federal parliament with fewer MP's.
This is not something to rush into. In my opinion, part of the problem is that the UK parliament does not represent votes cast. If in 2015 Lib Dems and UKIP win say 10% of the vote, with Lib Dems having say 40 MP's and UKIP only say 5, then this would not be acceptable to most people. FPTP is no longer fit for purpose and there should be another referendum on a form of proportional representation. ( AV was not a PR system)
The problem with PR is that it won;'t work, at least according to NPXMP, who seems to think that politicians are a bunch of ideologically-driven children rather than a bunch of men and women who want the best for their constituents and country.
Mr. Observer, point of order: no politician has advocated an English Parliament. It's my preferred option, and that of many Englishmen. Still room for Farage to make hay if he stakes out an English Parliament as UKIP policy.
Does anyone think an English Parliament focussing mainly on Health and Education, probably with PR as well, would be anything other than dominated by the Left? Do the Right REALLY want that?
Interesting thought. Likewise, wouldn't a UK parliament doing nothing but defence, immigration and the economy be permanently Tory? I guess this suits both sides pretty well - nobody ever has to give up the ministerial cars...
Stodge Exactly right, Key has won big, but not quite won a majority it seems.
New Zealand first are really kingmakers traditionally, and should not be lumped automatically with Labour and the Greens, their leader, Winston Peters, was a National MP, and NZ First formed a government with National in 1996 and Labour in 2005, it is basically a populist, anti immigration, UKIP style party.
Brown using various literary references to argue we should all come together and move on from the debate and argument. Robert Frost, Clockwork Orange been mentioned so far. "The Great in GB should not look shaky"
To their credit they have voluntarily enacted the solution for many years.
Absolutely and that's the key point. The Scots don;t mind England having its own parliament. They are getting home rule and more money, after all.
The only people in the way of a deal that suits England and Scotland are the labour party. They are the deal blockers.
And I don't think the Tories will be that bothered if Labour keep blocking it. It means that they can show that they are fighting for change (weakening a UKIP campaign point) while providing a clear reason to vote Conservative instead of Labour.
I really can't see how Labour can solve their problem of occasionally requiring Scottish votes cannot be solved without looking bad...
Mr. Observer, point of order: no politician has advocated an English Parliament. It's my preferred option, and that of many Englishmen. Still room for Farage to make hay if he stakes out an English Parliament as UKIP policy.
Does anyone think an English Parliament focussing mainly on Health and Education, probably with PR as well, would be anything other than dominated by the Left? Do the Right REALLY want that?
Interesting thought. Likewise, wouldn't a UK parliament doing nothing but defence, immigration and the economy be permanently Tory? I guess this suits both sides pretty well - nobody ever has to give up the ministerial cars...
It doesn't matter who dominates it. It is the basic principle that matters.
Another thread about this EV4EL drivel , where is the thread on Cornish V4CL or Manchester V4ML or taking it to its extreme 26 Acacia Ave V4 26 Acacia Ave laws .
That does sum up the situation quite well. There are many Tories that cannot come to terms with being in opposition from 1997 to 2010 and then having to put up with the Lib Dems for 5 years.
What Tory backbenchers are demanding is really being in government most of the time. This is probably what Labour thought when devolving power to Scotland.
Sorry, the numbers are changing all the time - National up to 48.5% and technically in a majority on their own. Poor result for Labour and the Greens though Labour have picked up the Napier electorate as a strong Conservative showing at the expense of National has got Labour home.
Worst Labour result since the 1920s.
For disclosure I vote for them, i liked Cunliffe but the party has been taken over by special interest groups. They failed the "identity, people like us" test. Clear warning here for the UK Labour party here.
This is not a simple issue of removing the rights of non English MP's to vote on English only issues. England elects most MPs and it generates/spends most of the money. It is quite possible for English MP's to pass legislation that is detrimental (budget wise) to the rest of the UK. Westminster is a UK parliament and each MP is equal.
If England wants to have a devolved parliament representing English only issues, then set up a separate entity. Northern Ireland and Wales can also have more devolution. Westminster can be the federal parliament with fewer MP's.
This is not something to rush into. In my opinion, part of the problem is that the UK parliament does not represent votes cast. If in 2015 Lib Dems and UKIP win say 10% of the vote, with Lib Dems having say 40 MP's and UKIP only say 5, then this would not be acceptable to most people. FPTP is no longer fit for purpose and there should be another referendum on a form of proportional representation. ( AV was not a PR system)
The problem with PR is that it won;'t work, at least according to NPXMP, who seems to think that politicians are a bunch of ideologically-driven children rather than a bunch of men and women who want the best for their constituents and country.
A question, will English laws need to be confirmed by the house of Lords? If not, and given it cannot veto finance bills, does it have any kind of role post EV4EL? If yes, will it be EL4EL (English Lords, etc.)
Is this a step to an essentially unicameral system?
The questions just keep coming. This is why it will take months if not years to sort all this out and wont see light of day this side of the GE.
Mr. Alex, what matters is that the English have equality. Whether England chooses Labour, Conservative or anyone else to govern them doesn't matter. What matters is that we are able to make that choice, without unaccountable Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish voting on matters which does not affect their constituents.
As I understand it David Cameron has no choice but to offer EV4EL. Without that offer, a deal to extend the Scots more powers and money simply wouldn't go through parliament.
Couldn't Labour + Lib Dems + SNP + some Tories vote it through parliament?
Not sure Cameron would keep his job though in that case.
They wouldn't do it even if they could. They don't want Devomax, and they can kill it and blame it on the Tories. The Tories don't want Devomax, and they can kill it and blame it on Labour. Everybody wins - it's a perfect example of positive-sum bipartisan cooperation.
The Scottish Tories do want Devomax. At present SNP or SLAB can simply moan about lack of funding for public services. With Devomax, their bluff can be called with "well, put the case for extra taxes on Scotland to the Scottish people".
A question, will English laws need to be confirmed by the house of Lords? If not, and given it cannot veto finance bills, does it have any kind of role post EV4EL? If yes, will it be EL4EL (English Lords, etc.)
Is this a step to an essentially unicameral system?
As far as can be discerned, English votes for English laws will merely alter the constitution of the British House of Commons when it considers England-only legislation. Such legislation will still need the approval of the House of Lords, as do all Acts of Parliament to which the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Parliament Act 1911 do not apply. English Lords for English votes is an impossibility. Consider the following. A distinguished former English judge, who was born and raised in Scotland, is raised to the peerage due to his expertise in English constitutional law and legal procedure. The person in question chooses to have his title gazetted in respect of a place in Scotland. Are they an English or a Scottish peer for these purposes?
F1: just listening to practice. Apparently the rumour mill suggests the Honda engine isn't so hot. I'll be keeping my ear to the ground for Honda news during the inter-season break.
Edited extra bit: Eric Silverman is guest co-commentator. Sound chap.
A good article again from David Herdson. Cameron and Hague unfortunately have form on ignoring fundamental issues until forced to do so, the Lisbon example one of them. After Lisbon Hague promised that when in Govt the Conservatives would "not let matters lie" on the lack of a referendum over Lisbon. A clear statement that they would do something on the EC referendum matter. But when in Govt, Hague and Cameron did nothing on the need for an EC referendum until forced to do so after several major back bench rebellions. We now have today the Ev4EL matter, which events have forced Cameron to address, even though he had a manifesto commitment to do something. But, alas look at the person assigned to sorting it out, William Hague, the master of inaction on the EC issues. Putting a "past their sell by date" politician who is heading into retirement, in charge of THE most important matter in Govt is not an inspiring decision.
Mr. Observer, point of order: no politician has advocated an English Parliament. It's my preferred option, and that of many Englishmen. Still room for Farage to make hay if he stakes out an English Parliament as UKIP policy.
Does anyone think an English Parliament focussing mainly on Health and Education, probably with PR as well, would be anything other than dominated by the Left? Do the Right REALLY want that?
Interesting thought. Likewise, wouldn't a UK parliament doing nothing but defence, immigration and the economy be permanently Tory? I guess this suits both sides pretty well - nobody ever has to give up the ministerial cars...
It doesn't matter who dominates it. It is the basic principle that matters.
I don'the get this dominated stuff. It only happens because the Tories choose to campaign on defence to balance out Labour on the NHS for example. They couldn't do that effectively if the issues went to different parliaments. There would have to be a manifesto for both.
However I don't support an English parliament, for bureaucratic reasons. Few projects would lie in the sole area of one and where the overhead created is a manageable issue re Wales and Scotland, it could be dreadfully damaging on a UK wide scale.
Mr. Alex, what matters is that the English have equality. Whether England chooses Labour, Conservative or anyone else to govern them doesn't matter. What matters is that we are able to make that choice, without unaccountable Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish voting on matters which does not affect their constituents.
Exactly Mr Dancer - I doubt much will have been sorted out and agreed upon other than basic principles before next May, but It will certainly be interesting to see what proposals will be appearing in party manifestos.
really can't see how Labour can solve their problem of occasionally requiring Scottish votes cannot be solved without looking bad...
They could adopt policies that are popular in England???
perish the thought.
Well, that is not really going to work is it? As I said below, under EV4EL it could well be the case that legislation enacting policies supported by parties that received over 50% of the vote in England could be blocked by a party that received just 35% or so of vote.
AS Johnstone Been a discussion of the poor result for the left, Labour and the Greens, on NZ TV over last 15 minutes, Cunliffe did not seem to connect like Miliband, Key very close to Cameron, an ominous warning for UK Labour
We could have the amusing situation of the SNP saying to scotland in 2015....look, vote for whoever you want, but just don't vote labour. We can do a deal with anybody else....
You are the one using dying children as ammunition in your political rants. Classy.
Some things shouldn't be profit making. Dying child as a profit stream? That's what's really classy....
One could write a list of all the people who would make a profit (I.e. be providing a service on commercial terms with the intent of rewarding shareholders or partners) in the tragic event of a child dying, but it would take far too long... But, as a starter:
- the GP - the funeral director - the provider of medicines - the provider of equipment - the finance company leasing the equipment - the supplier of any agency staff -,the insurers (if it's an accident involved) - the local newspaper that carries the story - and so on....
In all cases, were it to be my child, I'd be concerned about the quality of the service not the ownership and financing arrangements of the provider.... If it were your child, I trust you would demand all of the above be excluded, on principle...
Just had a look at twitter feed from Scotland Decides - there are some very sore egos, hope that they can cope with the result. Must be a few psychotherapists about to have more patients or clients queuing up.
"Scottish population = 5.3 million. Amazing that 2 million of them are Quislings. Divided & conquered. I hope they're proud."
AS Johnstone Been a discussion of the poor result for the left, Labour and the Greens, on NZ TV over last 15 minutes, Cunliffe did not seem to connect like Miliband, Key very close to Cameron, an ominous warning for UK Labour
Key is miles better than Cameron, he's a fantastic political operator, as good as Tony Blair at his peak. Masterful communicator. Like Blair he's done nothing meaningful with it
The Cunliffe / Miliband comparisons are valid. Both are overly earnest. The difference is that Cameron is weighed down by his party, the toxic tory tag still carries weight, it's identity politics. Key doesn't have that problem
A question, will English laws need to be confirmed by the house of Lords? If not, and given it cannot veto finance bills, does it have any kind of role post EV4EL? If yes, will it be EL4EL (English Lords, etc.)
Is this a step to an essentially unicameral system?
Leaving aside all the issues of the unworkability of EV4EL (still no answer to my question below on pork barrelling), i don't see that there is any issue in relation to the Lords. The Lords are the Lords. They don't represent any constituency beyond the disenfranchised, so there is no democratic legitimacy question for them, so there are no consequences of any individual being English/Scottish/American/Martian...
The answer to your point about Pork Barreling is simple. There is no more reason to expect it to happen with EV4EL than there is with the current devolution system. It is simply another straw man argument put up by those who oppose the basic principle of proper democratic representation.
As I said below, under EV4EL it could well be the case that legislation enacting policies supported by parties that received over 50% of the vote in England could be blocked by a party that received just 35% or so of vote.
That's no problem for me, as long as all of the parties doing the voting and the blocking are doing so on behalf of their electorates and remain accountable to them.
There's logjam in the US congress all the time. Sometimes electorates like the status quo. Other times they want change.
More important is that DevoMax will mean the majority of issues debated and voted on in the Commons would not apply to Scotland. It's indefensible to have MPs voting on matters which are devolved and would not affect their constituents.
Another thread about this EV4EL drivel , where is the thread on Cornish V4CL or Manchester V4ML or taking it to its extreme 26 Acacia Ave V4 26 Acacia Ave laws .
I sometimes wonder if you are actually as thick as you pretend to be Mark. If you cannot see the basic inequality in the current system then you clearly have no interest in democracy, only in your petty party concerns.
Mind you almost every post you have ever made on here confirms that.
I find it interesting that the lefties seem interested in Regional Assemblies which have already proven unpopular with the public but would have the advantage of providing lots of patronage to hangers-on and political climbers.
What Regional Assemblies are not is EV4EL and that seems to be what resonates with the public.
I still fail to see why the whole transition should be tricky. Leave the HoL where it is scrutinising UK legislation and move the HoC to being an English parliament with only English MPs. The UK parliament could then be either a "Council of Europe" style with each devolved parliament sending nominated Reps to it or directly elected by region from across the whole UK, but with limited UK-wide competencies such as Foreign Affairs and Defence.
What we must NOT do is try and find the "perfect" system or it will never get done, we just need one that addresses our needs better than the current system. As the old saying goes "The best is the enemy of the good"
Can someone actually provide an example of some dastardly law or policy imposed on England as a result of the votes of Scottish MP's?
Tuition fees for English students???
Plus of whole host of laws that English people may have liked in the last ficve years, such as boundary changes, that never got through parliament because of a combination of Scottish (and Welsh) labour and liberal MPs.
Otherwise they would have got through, getting rid of labour's shrinking rotten boroughs in England.
A question, will English laws need to be confirmed by the house of Lords? If not, and given it cannot veto finance bills, does it have any kind of role post EV4EL? If yes, will it be EL4EL (English Lords, etc.)
Is this a step to an essentially unicameral system?
As far as can be discerned, English votes for English laws will merely alter the constitution of the British House of Commons when it considers England-only legislation. Such legislation will still need the approval of the House of Lords, as do all Acts of Parliament to which the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Parliament Act 1911 do not apply. English Lords for English votes is an impossibility. Consider the following. A distinguished former English judge, who was born and raised in Scotland, is raised to the peerage due to his expertise in English constitutional law and legal procedure. The person in question chooses to have his title gazetted in respect of a place in Scotland. Are they an English or a Scottish peer for these purposes?
Since they are not elected it doesn't matter. The intent for the Lord's is that they are a revising chamber of experts and the Great and the Good (whoever that may be). So long as that is the basic premise of the Lords it doesn't matter which part of they UK they come from.
As I said below, under EV4EL it could well be the case that legislation enacting policies supported by parties that received over 50% of the vote in England could be blocked by a party that received just 35% or so of vote.
That's no problem for me, as long as all of the parties doing the voting and the blocking are doing so on behalf of their electorates and remain accountable to them.
There's logjam in the US congress all the time. Sometimes electorates like the status quo. Other times they want change.
My point is that having popular policies in England is no guarantee that they will be enacted under EV4EL. But you are right on accountability and that is an important point. Blocking popular legislation just because you can may not be a very wise idea, so it is by no means a given that a UK government that could not command an English majority would not get its legislation through a lot of the time. Take prescription charges, for example. How would a blocking Tory English majority treat proposals by a UK Labour government to extend the regime in Scotland to England?
I would agree with the idea that EVEL isn't going to drive the change away from Westminster. More devolution to a more local level in England. I have friends in Northern England who are keen on this. I would have Manchester and Birmingham as the 2 capitals with a London assembly too.
Part of the problem with having a unitary state is that London has become the centre of everything - political, commercial and financial power.
I'm not sure that putting the regional assemblies in the largest cities in the region is the best idea - so long as there is some rationale / good communications / reasonably central, it seems to me there is merit in promoting development of a second hub in each region
I still fail to see why the whole transition should be tricky.
It isn't tricky Bev. You are only being told its tricky by labour representatives trying to turn you into a second class voter to maintain their own power.
ASJohnstone Oh yes, Key better than Cameron and a better background, from ordinary family raised by his mother in public housing, and had a successful career at Merrill Lynch unlike Cameron, but Key better than Cunliffe and Cameron better than Miliband, and both Key and Cameron are ideologically very similar in their moderate, socially tolerant form of conservatism. Of course rightwing parties like ACT and populist parties like NZ first take some of the more extreme rightwing voters and UKIP seem to be doing the same in UK, that has enabled Key to take the centre, albeit also helped by PR meaning right vote not split
This is not a simple issue of removing the rights of non English MP's to vote on English only issues. England elects most MPs and it generates/spends most of the money. It is quite possible for English MP's to pass legislation that is detrimental (budget wise) to the rest of the UK. Westminster is a UK parliament and each MP is equal.
If England wants to have a devolved parliament representing English only issues, then set up a separate entity. Northern Ireland and Wales can also have more devolution. Westminster can be the federal parliament with fewer MP's.
This is not something to rush into. In my opinion, part of the problem is that the UK parliament does not represent votes cast. If in 2015 Lib Dems and UKIP win say 10% of the vote, with Lib Dems having say 40 MP's and UKIP only say 5, then this would not be acceptable to most people. FPTP is no longer fit for purpose and there should be another referendum on a form of proportional representation. ( AV was not a PR system)
The problem with PR is that it won;'t work, at least according to NPXMP, who seems to think that politicians are a bunch of ideologically-driven children rather than a bunch of men and women who want the best for their constituents and country.
PR works in other countries.
Yes, I know. And the coalition government has also worked. Which is why NPXMP's contentions earlier in the thread were so laughable.
It's quite hilarious that a would-be and once-was politician thinks that politicians are immature enough to form agreements, using examples of 'matters of principle' where his own party has slithered hither and thither repeatedly like oily snakes.
Mr. Observer, point of order: no politician has advocated an English Parliament. It's my preferred option, and that of many Englishmen. Still room for Farage to make hay if he stakes out an English Parliament as UKIP policy.
Does anyone think an English Parliament focussing mainly on Health and Education, probably with PR as well, would be anything other than dominated by the Left? Do the Right REALLY want that?
Interesting thought. Likewise, wouldn't a UK parliament doing nothing but defence, immigration and the economy be permanently Tory? I guess this suits both sides pretty well - nobody ever has to give up the ministerial cars...
It doesn't matter who dominates it. It is the basic principle that matters.
I don'the get this dominated stuff. It only happens because the Tories choose to campaign on defence to balance out Labour on the NHS for example. They couldn't do that effectively if the issues went to different parliaments. There would have to be a manifesto for both.
However I don't support an English parliament, for bureaucratic reasons. Few projects would lie in the sole area of one and where the overhead created is a manageable issue re Wales and Scotland, it could be dreadfully damaging on a UK wide scale.
In which case we should also withdraw all devolved powers from Scotland and Wales. Your argument cannot only apply to England.
Can someone actually provide an example of some dastardly law or policy imposed on England as a result of the votes of Scottish MP's?
Tuition fees for English students???
Plus of whole host of laws that English people may have liked in the last ficve years, such as boundary changes, that never got through parliament because of a combination of Scottish (and Welsh) labour and liberal MPs.
Otherwise they would have got through, getting rid of labour's shrinking rotten boroughs in England.
Another thread about this EV4EL drivel , where is the thread on Cornish V4CL or Manchester V4ML or taking it to its extreme 26 Acacia Ave V4 26 Acacia Ave laws .
I sometimes wonder if you are actually as thick as you pretend to be Mark. If you cannot see the basic inequality in the current system then you clearly have no interest in democracy, only in your petty party concerns.
Mind you almost every post you have ever made on here confirms that.
Well said, pathetic from Senior - Richard you and I differed on Scotland but you're absolutely right on this.
A question, will English laws need to be confirmed by the house of Lords? If not, and given it cannot veto finance bills, does it have any kind of role post EV4EL? If yes, will it be EL4EL (English Lords, etc.)
Is this a step to an essentially unicameral system?
Leaving aside all the issues of the unworkability of EV4EL (still no answer to my question below on pork barrelling), i don't see that there is any issue in relation to the Lords. The Lords are the Lords. They don't represent any constituency beyond the disenfranchised, so there is no democratic legitimacy question for them, so there are no consequences of any individual being English/Scottish/American/Martian...
The answer to your point about Pork Barreling is simple. There is no more reason to expect it to happen with EV4EL than there is with the current devolution system. It is simply another straw man argument put up by those who oppose the basic principle of proper democratic representation.
I don't understand your point - I'm asking a genuine question. Pork barrelling is not possible for issues within the remit of the devolved Parliaments. Either the parliaments have the power to legislate on individual issues, or they don't.
I just want to know how you define an "English bill", and how you prevent such an English bill being turned into a UK bill by the simple addition of clauses that apply to the UK as a whole by those with an interest in doing so (eg. a Labour Govt with a majority based on Scottish votes). I am not arguing against EV4EL on principle, but just want to know how it would WORK. If it could be made to work then it would perhaps be the neatest and least disruptive solution (although if it could work, why not just abolish the Scottish/Welsh and NI Parliaments and just have one Westminster Parliament operating under EV4EL, SV4SL, WV4WL and NIV4NIL...? )
I still fail to see why the whole transition should be tricky.
It isn't tricky Bev. You are only being told its tricky by labour representatives trying to turn you into a second class voter to maintain their own power.
OK - so who decides whether legislation is England-only?
A question, will English laws need to be confirmed by the house of Lords? If not, and given it cannot veto finance bills, does it have any kind of role post EV4EL? If yes, will it be EL4EL (English Lords, etc.)
Is this a step to an essentially unicameral system?
As far as can be discerned, English votes for English laws will merely alter the constitution of the British House of Commons when it considers England-only legislation. Such legislation will still need the approval of the House of Lords, as do all Acts of Parliament to which the provisions of sections 1 and 2 of the Parliament Act 1911 do not apply. English Lords for English votes is an impossibility. Consider the following. A distinguished former English judge, who was born and raised in Scotland, is raised to the peerage due to his expertise in English constitutional law and legal procedure. The person in question chooses to have his title gazetted in respect of a place in Scotland. Are they an English or a Scottish peer for these purposes?
They are a peer of the United Kingdom not of England or Scotland.
really can't see how Labour can solve their problem of occasionally requiring Scottish votes cannot be solved without looking bad...
They could adopt policies that are popular in England???
perish the thought.
Well, that is not really going to work is it? As I said below, under EV4EL it could well be the case that legislation enacting policies supported by parties that received over 50% of the vote in England could be blocked by a party that received just 35% or so of vote.
Its not about percentages. It is about democratic accountability. Something which is lacking in the current system under devolution.
As I said below, under EV4EL it could well be the case that legislation enacting policies supported by parties that received over 50% of the vote in England could be blocked by a party that received just 35% or so of vote.
That's no problem for me, as long as all of the parties doing the voting and the blocking are doing so on behalf of their electorates and remain accountable to them.
There's logjam in the US congress all the time. Sometimes electorates like the status quo. Other times they want change.
My point is that having popular policies in England is no guarantee that they will be enacted under EV4EL. But you are right on accountability and that is an important point. Blocking popular legislation just because you can may not be a very wise idea, so it is by no means a given that a UK government that could not command an English majority would not get its legislation through a lot of the time. Take prescription charges, for example. How would a blocking Tory English majority treat proposals by a UK Labour government to extend the regime in Scotland to England?
Surely as prescription charges are a devolved power in Scotland, they would be in England to? The UK government would be in no position to make such proposals.
I find it interesting that the lefties seem interested in Regional Assemblies which have already proven unpopular with the public but would have the advantage of providing lots of patronage to hangers-on and political climbers.
What Regional Assemblies are not is EV4EL and that seems to be what resonates with the public.
I still fail to see why the whole transition should be tricky. Leave the HoL where it is scrutinising UK legislation and move the HoC to being an English parliament with only English MPs. The UK parliament could then be either a "Council of Europe" style with each devolved parliament sending nominated Reps to it or directly elected by region from across the whole UK, but with limited UK-wide competencies such as Foreign Affairs and Defence.
What we must NOT do is try and find the "perfect" system or it will never get done, we just need one that addresses our needs better than the current system. As the old saying goes "The best is the enemy of the good"
That is an interesting idea. It's shame that no-one is proposing it.
Take prescription charges, for example. How would a blocking Tory English majority treat proposals by a UK Labour government to extend the regime in Scotland to England?
Labour couldn;t do that at national level. English labour would have to campaign to abolish prescription charges at the English level and pass that law when they got a workable majority at English level. This would be a devolved power.
Mr. Tyndall, it genuinely baffles me why some people (not the grubby politicians like Miliband, though) are against a fair deal for England. They love devolution for everywhere else, but seem to think it's a problem for England.
Is it some kind of Guardian-reading, white guilt, check your privilege, afraid to like your own country pathology? What sort of warped reasoning makes someone think Scottish devolution is a-ok, but English devolution is terribly complicated and perhaps not even worth doing?
And if one Parliament can serve Scotland, one Parliament can serve England.
So is the United Kingdom. It seems absurd to come up with an expensive, beuaractaric solution to a "problem" with a geographic anomaly that almost never occurs in practice, whilst acknowledging that many other anomalies will continue.
Why are you not outraged by the North West not getting a "fair deal" over HS2?
Why are the people of the North West not getting a fair deal over HS2? It serves Manchester, and classic trains will serve many destinations in the northwest.
The point is that MPs from the South West can vote on HS2 as well despite it having nothing to do with their constituencies. It was to illustrate the absurdities of whinging about Scottish MPs.
Another thread about this EV4EL drivel , where is the thread on Cornish V4CL or Manchester V4ML or taking it to its extreme 26 Acacia Ave V4 26 Acacia Ave laws .
I sometimes wonder if you are actually as thick as you pretend to be Mark. If you cannot see the basic inequality in the current system then you clearly have no interest in democracy, only in your petty party concerns.
Mind you almost every post you have ever made on here confirms that.
I will try not to answer for Mark. But of course everyone realises that if you set up devolved bodies, that this will present a democratic issue in a central parliament.
The question is whether it is right to muck around with the UK parliament at Westminster. It cannot be right to restrict what MP's can vote on. If the English want to have their own parliament, then that is their choice. Labour won't sign a party agreement stopping non English MP's voting on English only issues. If the Tories want to do this, then they have to follow a democratic process to achieve the change they want.
A question, will English laws need to be confirmed by the house of Lords? If not, and given it cannot veto finance bills, does it have any kind of role post EV4EL? If yes, will it be EL4EL (English Lords, etc.)
Is this a step to an essentially unicameral system?
Leaving aside all the issues of the unworkability of EV4EL (still no answer to my question below on pork barrelling), i don't see that there is any issue in relation to the Lords. The Lords are the Lords. They don't represent any constituency beyond the disenfranchised, so there is no democratic legitimacy question for them, so there are no consequences of any individual being English/Scottish/American/Martian...
The answer to your point about Pork Barreling is simple. There is no more reason to expect it to happen with EV4EL than there is with the current devolution system. It is simply another straw man argument put up by those who oppose the basic principle of proper democratic representation.
I don't understand your point - I'm asking a genuine question. Pork barrelling is not possible for issues within the remit of the devolved Parliaments. Either the parliaments have the power to legislate on individual issues, or they don't.
I just want to know how you define an "English bill", and how you prevent such an English bill being turned into a UK bill by the simple addition of clauses that apply to the UK as a whole by those with an interest in doing so (eg. a Labour Govt with a majority based on Scottish votes). I am not arguing against EV4EL on principle, but just want to know how it would WORK. If it could be made to work then it would perhaps be the neatest and least disruptive solution (although if it could work, why not just abolish the Scottish/Welsh and NI Parliaments and just have one Westminster Parliament operating under EV4EL, SV4SL, WV4WL and NIV4NIL...? )
An English Bill would be defined as any which covers an area which has been devolved to the other nations. Since it is obviously possible to define it now so as to know what Holyrood and Cardiff can vote on it is not beyond the wit of man to use that to define what an English bill is.
To make this process simpler I would devolve far more powers to Wales and Scotland - making sure for example that all aspects of Universities are devolved rather than excluding research as we currently do.
The process is already in place and is used daily. Which is why it is a Straw Man argument.
Take prescription charges, for example. How would a blocking Tory English majority treat proposals by a UK Labour government to extend the regime in Scotland to England?
Labour couldn;t do that at national level. English labour would have to campaign to abolish prescription charges at the English level and pass that law when they got a workable majority at English level. This would be a devolved power.
That's not EV4EL, I'm afraid. What you are talking about is an English parliament, which is a completely different animal and one that none of the parties is proposing. Personally, I have no problem at all with an English parliament.
OK - so who decides whether legislation is England-only?
Probably the same people who decide it already. Bills already come marked as "UK", "England & Wales", "Scotland" etc. It is already done.
The "Great Depts of State" are largely devolved already so that is already sorted out and just needed to be completely done.
Cameron could start the process of moving in this direction and begin the enabling legislation and such. It does not matter if it is delivered this side of an election or not but it needs to start. If other parties want to block or obstruct it then that is up to them. With an election coming they will have to explain themselves to the voters.
I still fail to see why the whole transition should be tricky.
It isn't tricky Bev. You are only being told its tricky by labour representatives trying to turn you into a second class voter to maintain their own power.
OK - so who decides whether legislation is England-only?
The HoC has been able to decide which legislation should not apply in Scotland or Wales etc but is a "devolved matter" for 15 years.
The "regional assemblies as a form of English devolution" idea is a distraction from the West Lothian question. No one is seriously proposing that these assemblies should have the power to make primary legislation or to levy any major tax. They are fundamentally a reorganisation of English local government, perhaps with a few powers of the Secretary of State thrown in for good measure. To pass such a local government reorganisation with the votes of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs when Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish local government has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies would merely demonstrate the necessity of addressing the West Lothian question, rather than being its solution.
That's not EV4EL, I'm afraid. What you are talking about is an English parliament, which is a completely different animal and one that none of the parties is proposing.
Well you have me there, but I don;t really see how the situation is that different under EV4EL. Its just geography, isn;t it?
As I said below, under EV4EL it could well be the case that legislation enacting policies supported by parties that received over 50% of the vote in England could be blocked by a party that received just 35% or so of vote.
That's no problem for me, as long as all of the parties doing the voting and the blocking are doing so on behalf of their electorates and remain accountable to them.
There's logjam in the US congress all the time. Sometimes electorates like the status quo. Other times they want change.
My point is that having popular policies in England is no guarantee that they will be enacted under EV4EL. But you are right on accountability and that is an important point. Blocking popular legislation just because you can may not be a very wise idea, so it is by no means a given that a UK government that could not command an English majority would not get its legislation through a lot of the time. Take prescription charges, for example. How would a blocking Tory English majority treat proposals by a UK Labour government to extend the regime in Scotland to England?
Surely as prescription charges are a devolved power in Scotland, they would be in England to? The UK government would be in no position to make such proposals.
But that is not what EV4EL means, is it? What we are talking about is legislation enacted by the UK government that only affects England having to be approved by MPs representing English constituencies. It is absolutely not about creating an England-only government based on the votes received by parties in a UK-wide election.
Another thread about this EV4EL drivel , where is the thread on Cornish V4CL or Manchester V4ML or taking it to its extreme 26 Acacia Ave V4 26 Acacia Ave laws .
I sometimes wonder if you are actually as thick as you pretend to be Mark. If you cannot see the basic inequality in the current system then you clearly have no interest in democracy, only in your petty party concerns.
Mind you almost every post you have ever made on here confirms that.
I will try not to answer for Mark. But of course everyone realises that if you set up devolved bodies, that this will present a democratic issue in a central parliament. The question is whether it is right to muck around with the UK parliament at Westminster. It cannot be right to restrict what MP's can vote on. If the English want to have their own parliament, then that is their choice. Labour won't sign a party agreement stopping non English MP's voting on English only issues. If the Tories want to do this, then they have to follow a democratic process to achieve the change they want.
It was in the Conservative manifesto at GE2010 and they have a mandate to propose it. Of course if other parties choose to oppose it they can then explain that to the voters at GE2015, particularly English voters.
Comments
My feeling is Labour will block any legislation until they get in after the general election and then pass the extra devolved powers to Scotland without resolving the WLQ.
Who will the Scots blame for the broken promises? What does Cameron stand to lose?
That accounts for the urban seats which will finish declaring last and lean more Labour
They would have to put that in their manifesto. How do you think that would go down in England?
Alex Salmond also confirmed this when he said that Cameron had confirmed there would be no second reading of a new bill by March 27th on the grounds that it would be "pointless". Pointless obviously because second reading or no second reading, there is no chance of any bill passing before the election.
That's probably true. Let's see what the polls say in due course.
Is this a step to an essentially unicameral system?
But if further Scottish devolution is to happen then it's equally important that the disparity re England is addressed at the same time. We know Labour is keen to foot-drag on it and to the extent that it wants further devolution in England, it's talking about partial solutions, both in area and in powers. While EV4EL is not as robust a solution as regional parliaments (or an English parliament, for that matter), it is nonetheless comprehensive in its application.
His broad sweep analysis of Scotland and World problems is very convincing.
Less convincing are his solutions.
Mr. Observer, point of order: no politician has advocated an English Parliament. It's my preferred option, and that of many Englishmen. Still room for Farage to make hay if he stakes out an English Parliament as UKIP policy.
Ambulance builders
Drug companies
Cleaning product manufacturers
Bandage and dressings manufacturers
Builders
Xray machine manufacturers
Etc, etc, etc.
If not why not?
I'd have thought they would blame the three party leaders who failed to deliver. Trouble is, one has one MP in Scotland, and one has 40 MPs.
The Scots seem a fair minded bunch. They don;t mind an English parliament, or EV4EL, in return for their autonomy. They don;t fear English 'nationalism'.
Only labour do.
Labour are projected to win just 31 seats and with the Greens and NZ first their bloc would have 56 seats in the new Parliament.
Except scottish labour. Reckon you'd hang onto the Scottish 40 under those circumstances?
EV4EL has not been front of mind for any voters until the last few days. But it is now and that's all that counts.
The Tory offer is simple. We want English MP's only to vote on English laws.
Labours is we're not popular in England but we'll still going to be in charge.
I've been consistent in saying we need to learn what went on so we can stop it happening again, and not look for quick and easy scapegoats. That will take time, but IMHO it's worth it.
New Zealand first are really kingmakers traditionally, and should not be lumped automatically with Labour and the Greens, their leader, Winston Peters, was a National MP, and NZ First formed a government with National in 1996 and Labour in 2005, it is basically a populist, anti immigration, UKIP style party.
NZ Leader Winston Peters now just come out to speak to his supporters now, with the party having gained some MPs tonight http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/s-position-strong-third-votes-counted-6086349
Other than MalcG has any Nat's appeared in the past 24hrs or have they become an endangered species on PB.COM?
I really can't see how Labour can solve their problem of occasionally requiring Scottish votes cannot be solved without looking bad...
What Tory backbenchers are demanding is really being in government most of the time. This is probably what Labour thought when devolving power to Scotland.
For disclosure I vote for them, i liked Cunliffe but the party has been taken over by special interest groups. They failed the "identity, people like us" test. Clear warning here for the UK Labour party here.
They could adopt policies that are popular in England???
perish the thought.
Not sure which one they mean....Only one really matters anyway.
F1: just listening to practice. Apparently the rumour mill suggests the Honda engine isn't so hot. I'll be keeping my ear to the ground for Honda news during the inter-season break.
Edited extra bit: Eric Silverman is guest co-commentator. Sound chap.
However I don't support an English parliament, for bureaucratic reasons. Few projects would lie in the sole area of one and where the overhead created is a manageable issue re Wales and Scotland, it could be dreadfully damaging on a UK wide scale.
We could have the amusing situation of the SNP saying to scotland in 2015....look, vote for whoever you want, but just don't vote labour. We can do a deal with anybody else....
- the GP
- the funeral director
- the provider of medicines
- the provider of equipment
- the finance company leasing the equipment
- the supplier of any agency staff
-,the insurers (if it's an accident involved)
- the local newspaper that carries the story
- and so on....
In all cases, were it to be my child, I'd be concerned about the quality of the service not the ownership and financing arrangements of the provider.... If it were your child, I trust you would demand all of the above be excluded, on principle...
"Scottish population = 5.3 million. Amazing that 2 million of them are Quislings. Divided & conquered. I hope they're proud."
The Cunliffe / Miliband comparisons are valid. Both are overly earnest. The difference is that Cameron is weighed down by his party, the toxic tory tag still carries weight, it's identity politics. Key doesn't have that problem
That's no problem for me, as long as all of the parties doing the voting and the blocking are doing so on behalf of their electorates and remain accountable to them.
There's logjam in the US congress all the time. Sometimes electorates like the status quo. Other times they want change.
More important is that DevoMax will mean the majority of issues debated and voted on in the Commons would not apply to Scotland. It's indefensible to have MPs voting on matters which are devolved and would not affect their constituents.
Mind you almost every post you have ever made on here confirms that.
What Regional Assemblies are not is EV4EL and that seems to be what resonates with the public.
I still fail to see why the whole transition should be tricky. Leave the HoL where it is scrutinising UK legislation and move the HoC to being an English parliament with only English MPs. The UK parliament could then be either a "Council of Europe" style with each devolved parliament sending nominated Reps to it or directly elected by region from across the whole UK, but with limited UK-wide competencies such as Foreign Affairs and Defence.
What we must NOT do is try and find the "perfect" system or it will never get done, we just need one that addresses our needs better than the current system. As the old saying goes "The best is the enemy of the good"
Tuition fees for English students???
Plus of whole host of laws that English people may have liked in the last ficve years, such as boundary changes, that never got through parliament because of a combination of Scottish (and Welsh) labour and liberal MPs.
Otherwise they would have got through, getting rid of labour's shrinking rotten boroughs in England.
Labour are trying to muddy the waters in a desperate bid to avoid giving the English a fair deal.
I'm not sure that putting the regional assemblies in the largest cities in the region is the best idea - so long as there is some rationale / good communications / reasonably central, it seems to me there is merit in promoting development of a second hub in each region
It isn't tricky Bev. You are only being told its tricky by labour representatives trying to turn you into a second class voter to maintain their own power.
Cunliffe and Miliband similar as you say.
It's quite hilarious that a would-be and once-was politician thinks that politicians are immature enough to form agreements, using examples of 'matters of principle' where his own party has slithered hither and thither repeatedly like oily snakes.
I just want to know how you define an "English bill", and how you prevent such an English bill being turned into a UK bill by the simple addition of clauses that apply to the UK as a whole by those with an interest in doing so (eg. a Labour Govt with a majority based on Scottish votes). I am not arguing against EV4EL on principle, but just want to know how it would WORK. If it could be made to work then it would perhaps be the neatest and least disruptive solution (although if it could work, why not just abolish the Scottish/Welsh and NI Parliaments and just have one Westminster Parliament operating under EV4EL, SV4SL, WV4WL and NIV4NIL...? )
Labour couldn;t do that at national level. English labour would have to campaign to abolish prescription charges at the English level and pass that law when they got a workable majority at English level. This would be a devolved power.
Is it some kind of Guardian-reading, white guilt, check your privilege, afraid to like your own country pathology? What sort of warped reasoning makes someone think Scottish devolution is a-ok, but English devolution is terribly complicated and perhaps not even worth doing?
And if one Parliament can serve Scotland, one Parliament can serve England.
The question is whether it is right to muck around with the UK parliament at Westminster. It cannot be right to restrict what MP's can vote on. If the English want to have their own parliament, then that is their choice. Labour won't sign a party agreement stopping non English MP's voting on English only issues. If the Tories want to do this, then they have to follow a democratic process to achieve the change they want.
Good question.....Anything we give to Scotland, we give to England would be my principle.
To make this process simpler I would devolve far more powers to Wales and Scotland - making sure for example that all aspects of Universities are devolved rather than excluding research as we currently do.
The process is already in place and is used daily. Which is why it is a Straw Man argument.
Never underestimate Labour's visceral hatred of white English middle class people. This issue is exposing it for all to see. The mask is slipping.
The "Great Depts of State" are largely devolved already so that is already sorted out and just needed to be completely done.
Cameron could start the process of moving in this direction and begin the enabling legislation and such. It does not matter if it is delivered this side of an election or not but it needs to start. If other parties want to block or obstruct it then that is up to them. With an election coming they will have to explain themselves to the voters.
Well you have me there, but I don;t really see how the situation is that different under EV4EL.
Its just geography, isn;t it?