I never thought I'd say this but I think Farage has got it right - a constitutional convention with the task of creating a federal UK seems the obvious way forward. This wouldn't stop more powers being given to Scotland in the short term, but it would ensure that the whole issue is considered in a measured and thoughtful way and - hopefully - bring forwards solution that all parties can sign up to.
Cameron's statement yesterday is reminiscent of his EU referendum pledge - sounded good at the time and kept his party quiet for a few days - but no clear strategy and raised expectations which cannot be met.
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?
This is a crucial issue. EV4EL is merely a blocking mechanism. It means that legislation affecting only England cannot become law unless it is approved by MPs representing English constituencies - nothing more. It does not give English MPs the right or ability to form an English government within the House of Commons, or any additional rights to introduce legislation, or to control the legislative timetable of the House of Commons.
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.
Given Blair's majority wouldn't that have passed even if no Scottish MP's had voted?
The West Lothian question is a problem that exists largely in theory, not in practice. Given that (as things stand) Westminster retains the right in theory to legislate on devolved matters or even to abolish Holyrood I cannot see how non-english MPs voting rights can reasonably be restricted.
The best solution would actually be a Scottish Tory recovery at Westminster (perhaps not impossible given some of the referendum results) removing the incentive to play the "english card".
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.
MPs in the midlands , London and North can also vote on NHS & education matters in the South West. What they cannot do is vote on NHS and Education matters in Scotland, whereas Scots MPs can vote in the other regions. Just an issue of fairness, sorry if you fail to see it that way, the English electorate will not, once it explodes over the course of the next few months.
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.
In which case EV4EL is utterly meaningless, because it will be up to the Commons as a whole - or the UK government - to decide what is an England-only law.
Probably the same people who decide it already. Bills already come marked as "UK", "England & Wales", "Scotland" etc. It is already done.
The problem is that the mere fact that legislation extends to England and Wales only does not stop it from being a reserved matter were it to apply to Scotland. For instance, legislation on firearms or the misuse of drugs could be passed which extended only to England and Wales. Nevertheless, Scottish MPs would have a right to vote on it because the Scottish Parliament has no power to legislate on firearms which are not air weapons or on the misuse of drugs. Thus before devolution it was perfectly proper for Scottish MPs to vote on the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 which only extended to England and Wales, because English and Welsh MPs had a vote on the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997. When it is remembered that all the devolution settlements are asymmetric (thank you Blair), it will be appreciated what a mess we are in. That is not to say it is insoluble, merely that it will be very difficult to address.
To restate a point, if the proposed Tory solution is EV4EL in the form of a grand committee of the House of Commons, what they propose is to give England a 2nd class status. The other nations get parliaments or assemblies because a grand committee of the Commons isn't sufficient. Yet for England with our vastly bigger population they claim it is sufficient.
I wholeheartedly agree that the status quo must end. I partially agree with criticism of regional assemblies and voted against the NE one proposed a decade ago. But do think we need to give power to regions and town rather than centralising them. But you can't do that unless you have resolved making English laws. And that HAS to mean an English parliament - any arrangement short of this is absurd and frankly insulting.
Of to bank a £1.5k cheque from HMRC. Stopping those rich, but thick, northern child-benefit-monkeys residing in SW London - :spits: - does seem to be paying of for the average taxpayer!
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.
OK, fair enough, you are defining an English bill as a bill which contains ANY provision, however small which would fall within the competencies of devolved administrations of their respective countries. This might create an issue where the devolved competencies are different in say Scotland and Wales, but is the first coherent definition i've heard. It does potentially create the problem in reverse however. How do you prevent a UK bill being converted into an English bill by the insertion of an unrelated English only clause. I suppose you could try to write the legislation so that any bill containing English only matters could ONLY contain English only matters. The interesting question however is what happens if the UK Parliament decides to devolve MORE power to "England" than is available to devolved assemblies...
With DevoMax the problem becomes realised on a daily basis. It cannot be simply unanswered. England has been ignored for too long, and I hope Miliband gets hammered for his weasel words on this matter.
If Cameron won 30 MPs in Scotland in 2015 that would not diminish the need for an English Parliament a jot.
If we're all honest with each other, there are genuine problems both with the status quo and with each alternative.
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).
Doesn't matter if it has no effect, because it means that the voters' representatives support the decisions.
As for gridlock, that's fine. A UK-wide government simply needs to ensure that those of its policies which apply to England command majority support.
In 2005 Labour won a majority of seats in England even though it got less votes than the Tories. To me that is an absurdity, but it does put EV4EL into some kind of context.
Much more problematic would be a situation in which the Tories won most seats in England but could not command a majority in the House to form a government - what we have now, in fact. Would the LDs have gone into coalition with the Tories knowing that this would effectively have given them majority control of English affairs?
It wouldn't give them control - but would probably mean that the government was more Conservative-weighted in England and more LibDem-weighted in Scotland to compensate
Is that out of line with the reality of what voters, more or less, 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.
Or alternatively, a Bill is defined as English or UK at the outset. Those defined as English cannot have provisions inserted later which apply outside England.
Re Robert's point on the Lords, there'd be no need to change things. The Lords would still be able to amend the legislation and even vote it down but ultimately the Parliament Act could be applied.
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.
MPs in the midlands , London and North can also vote on NHS & education matters in the South West. What they cannot do is vote on NHS and Education matters in Scotland, whereas Scots MPs can vote in the other regions. Just an issue of fairness, sorry if you fail to see it that way, the English electorate will not, once it explodes over the course of the next few months.
Quite right. This is what being a country and a polity is all about - a democracy which operates according to the same principles everywhere. Devolution has created atomisation and conflict, but that is what we are now stuck with.
The Scots vote to stay in the union and the response is to make their 59 MPs second class ones. Eh?
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.
Tory Peebies who take this view - and from what I've seen here I reckon Swiss Bob speaks for the majority of them - need to answer this question: why do you want the Labour Party (or any successor with broadly the same principles) to be legal?
David Herdson talked about the "louder noises" from behind Cameron - could this be one of them?
TBF, Swiss_Bob is criticising Labour politicians for being venal, not the party per se.
I don't remember any Labour PMs before Blair in any real detail but I'm prepared to argue that, although they were clearly politicians and had their own interests in mind, they knew where the limits were. However, Blair, Brown and Miliband take things to a whole new level of self-serving behaviour
Indeed. The Tories are never self-serving. It just so happens that the constitutional proposals they put forward and which benefit then electorally are objectively good for the country. Now, let me tell you about that letter I received from the widow of a Nigerian general recently ...
Of course they are self-serving. But on balance they are more concerned to preserve the rules of the game.
For instance, the self-serving thing to do would to have accepted Clegg's ridiculous suggestions for the HoL and get boundary reform in return. But wnough were principled enough to say it was garbage, regardless of the consequences
It does not give English MPs the right or ability to form an English government within the House of Commons, or any additional rights to introduce legislation, or to control the legislative timetable of the House of Commons.
It isn;t a crucial issue, its a minor issue. Any MPs can propose any private member's bill, and it will get through if it has enough support, even cross party.
The English MPs would have a de facto right to pass their own laws based on numbers who could actually walk through divisions, given the new arrangements.
New coalitions of MPs would rise and fall as the new arrangements played out.
To restate a point, if the proposed Tory solution is EV4EL in the form of a grand committee of the House of Commons, what they propose is to give England a 2nd class status. The other nations get parliaments or assemblies because a grand committee of the Commons isn't sufficient. Yet for England with our vastly bigger population they claim it is sufficient.
I wholeheartedly agree that the status quo must end. I partially agree with criticism of regional assemblies and voted against the NE one proposed a decade ago. But do think we need to give power to regions and town rather than centralising them. But you can't do that unless you have resolved making English laws. And that HAS to mean an English parliament - any arrangement short of this is absurd and frankly insulting.
Absolutely right. I think a lot of people on here are over-interpreting what EV4EL actually means. At best, it is a negative, blocking right. And if what you are saying about a Grand Committee is correct (we don't know yet because the Tories have not given any details about what they are proposing), it will also lack transparency and will make it very hard for English voters to hold their MPs to account. If England is to have genuine equality of decision-making with Scotland then it needs its own parliament.
Here's a further question on EV4EL. Would it extend to ESOEL (English speaking on English laws)? In its most basic form could a Scottish MP kill off an English only Private Members bill, by objecting to it? Or later, contribute to a filibuster to try to talk it out of Parliamentary time?
Good morning everyone. I support EV4EL as a necessary starting point for change for England. It may well be that is where it stops if the public are content with that, although I would be aiming, post-EV4EL to devolve powers down to cities and counties too.
The issue of two types of MP is a nonsense. We already have it as some note and thus I think we can cope with some Scottish, Welsh, NI based MPs not voting on certain laws. The SNP MPs do it already.
This final point about aboe shows that already the SNP MPs seem capable of determining what laws are English only. Indeed the McKay commission suggested a committee voting response to the WLQ which (a) splits MPs in the to types anyway and (b) must have had a mechanism to determine which laws are English only. The bigger challenge is probably English/Welsh laws.
The point about West Country MPs voting on HS2 is ridiculous to be honest and gets to the heart of the issue. At the moment England does not exist as a political entity and it should be recognised as one. I don't care if a Cornwall MP votes on HS2 because he/she is an English based MP discussing an issue for that nation. If we did not allow MPs to vote on devolved issues within a country, we would never vote on anything. Indeed this criticism is born out of a desire to avoid, or at best a lack of consideration, that England is a nation and should have political recognition.
Finally, as I stated last night. I have no issue with the UK government serving as the English executive. It is in a sense imperfect and messy, but I acknowledge that is how things are. More than that, I accept that English based MPs have 85% of votes in UK, and that a UK minister would, with EV4EL, have to gain approval from England for their laws anyway improving democratic accountability.
Cunliffe said he has called Key and congratulated him on reelection of his government, also attacked scandals of the campaign, and highlights those gains Labour did make
It does not give English MPs the right or ability to form an English government within the House of Commons, or any additional rights to introduce legislation, or to control the legislative timetable of the House of Commons.
It isn;t a crucial issue, its a minor issue. Any MPs can propose any private member's bill, and it will get through if it has enough support, even cross party.
The English MPs would have a de facto right to pass their own laws based on numbers who could actually walk through divisions, given the new arrangements.
New coalitions of MPs would rise and fall as the new arrangements played out.
No, the ability of backbench MPs to introduce legislation is severely limited.
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.
MPs in the midlands , London and North can also vote on NHS & education matters in the South West. What they cannot do is vote on NHS and Education matters in Scotland, whereas Scots MPs can vote in the other regions. Just an issue of fairness, sorry if you fail to see it that way, the English electorate will not, once it explodes over the course of the next few months.
Nothing is going to explode, because nobody cares outside of Westminster.
Off, or maybe on topic - and having emerged from behind the sofa on Friday morning -I thought I might like to dip my toe in the background reason for this excellent site. I know absolutely nothing about political, or any other, betting. Can someone recommend a good 'political' betting printer, or is there a 'Betting for Idiots' book in that popular series - or is that a tautology>
This is a crucial issue. EV4EL is merely a blocking mechanism. It means that legislation affecting only England cannot become law unless it is approved by MPs representing English constituencies - nothing more. It does not give English MPs the right or ability to form an English government within the House of Commons, or any additional rights to introduce legislation, or to control the legislative timetable of the House of Commons.
This is why English votes for English laws is an utterly unsustainable proposition. Suppose one party had a majority of English MPs, but another a majority in the House of Commons. Suppose the leader of the former tabled a motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Education, and that it was debated and voted on, in opposition time. How on earth could it be legitimate for Scottish MPs from the party of the UK government to vote on such a motion, if it is conceded that they have no power to vote on the subject matter of legislation affecting the department?
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"
I am not a leftie but am a fan of regional parliaments and governments. There's no need for it to extend the number of politicians - reductions could be made at UK and local level (regional governments could easily mean county councils are no longer required but local government should be left for each region to decide).
However, your final quote is spot on. While I favour regional governments, it's clear that there's no great groundswell of support for them at the moment. By contrast, resolving the WLQ is a pressing matter and if there's a good quick fix which commands public support - which EV4EL does, that'll satisfy for now.
OK, fair enough, you are defining an English bill as a bill which contains ANY provision, however small which would fall within the competencies of devolved administrations of their respective countries. This might create an issue where the devolved competencies are different in say Scotland and Wales, but is the first coherent definition i've heard. It does potentially create the problem in reverse however. How do you prevent a UK bill being converted into an English bill by the insertion of an unrelated English only clause. I suppose you could try to write the legislation so that any bill containing English only matters could ONLY contain English only matters. The interesting question however is what happens if the UK Parliament decides to devolve MORE power to "England" than is available to devolved assemblies...
Alex, the point you raise is a good one and is why a separate English Parliament is not - to my mind - the answer.
Given that there are differing levels of devolution to Scotland, Wales and NI it would be necessary for the Speaker - under legal advisement - to define who was able to vote on an issue. It would not simply be a case of English or UK. In some cases Welsh MPs would be voting alongside their English colleagues with Scots MPs barred due to the level of devolution.
It really isn't that difficult and would be made all the easier if some form of standard devolution was applied across the whole of the UK.
Simple step for Cameron is to introduce quickly a popular England only measure that he knows labour and libs will oppose. Loose the vote because of Scots and Welsh lab/ lib MP's and hey ho he's got proof how undemocratic lab especially are.
@Morris Dancer is right about a Scottish Conservative revival. I want to see more tories in Scotland and Wales and think in the former Ruth Davidson has a real chance here. But even if Scotland sent 40 Conservative MPs to Westminster, I would not change my mind - those MPs should not be able to vote on legislation that suits England only. If that means a UK Conservative government acting as English Executive has to negotiate with Labour English MPs to pass the laws impacting on England so be it. It would be fairer than what we have now.
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.
Or alternatively, a Bill is defined as English or UK at the outset. Those defined as English cannot have provisions inserted later which apply outside England.
David that's not remotely an answer. Because the point of EV4EL is to thwart a Govt using Scottish MPs to buttress its majority. No such Govt would ever voluntarily allow a bill to be defined as "English" at the outset. Perhaps i have slightly misused the phrase "pork barrelling", since that implies amending published bills. In my scenario the 'amendments' would be in the published bill itself.
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.
MPs in the midlands , London and North can also vote on NHS & education matters in the South West. What they cannot do is vote on NHS and Education matters in Scotland, whereas Scots MPs can vote in the other regions. Just an issue of fairness, sorry if you fail to see it that way, the English electorate will not, once it explodes over the course of the next few months.
Nothing is going to explode, because nobody cares outside of Westminster.
Not yet, but if, for once Cameron actually mounted a sustained campaign on this, he could create the explosion. Of course if he leaves it to Hague and Osborne's tactics, then Farage may seize the initiative instead.
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.
Given Blair's majority wouldn't that have passed even if no Scottish MP's had voted?
The West Lothian question is a problem that exists largely in theory, not in practice. Given that (as things stand) Westminster retains the right in theory to legislate on devolved matters or even to abolish Holyrood I cannot see how non-english MPs voting rights can reasonably be restricted.
The best solution would actually be a Scottish Tory recovery at Westminster (perhaps not impossible given some of the referendum results) removing the incentive to play the "english card".
Given the large increases in devolved powers that are being proposed it is no longer practical simply to look back and claim it doesn't matter. It does, and it will all the more in the future.
As has already been pointed out, one of the most contentious issues in recent times - student tuition fees - was only imposed on England with the support of Scots MP's who knew full well it would not affect their own constituents.
OK, fair enough, you are defining an English bill as a bill which contains ANY provision, however small which would fall within the competencies of devolved administrations of their respective countries. This might create an issue where the devolved competencies are different in say Scotland and Wales, but is the first coherent definition i've heard. It does potentially create the problem in reverse however. How do you prevent a UK bill being converted into an English bill by the insertion of an unrelated English only clause. I suppose you could try to write the legislation so that any bill containing English only matters could ONLY contain English only matters. The interesting question however is what happens if the UK Parliament decides to devolve MORE power to "England" than is available to devolved assemblies...
Alex, the point you raise is a good one and is why a separate English Parliament is not - to my mind - the answer.
Given that there are differing levels of devolution to Scotland, Wales and NI it would be necessary for the Speaker - under legal advisement - to define who was able to vote on an issue. It would not simply be a case of English or UK. In some cases Welsh MPs would be voting alongside their English colleagues with Scots MPs barred due to the level of devolution.
It really isn't that difficult and would be made all the easier if some form of standard devolution was applied across the whole of the UK.
Who gets to choose the Speaker? It makes that role even more important - and political - than it is now.
With DevoMax the problem becomes realised on a daily basis. It cannot be simply unanswered. England has been ignored for too long, and I hope Miliband gets hammered for his weasel words on this matter.
If Cameron won 30 MPs in Scotland in 2015 that would not diminish the need for an English Parliament a jot.
Nonsense, the WLQ is and will continue to be irrelevant unless removing the votes of Scottish MPs changes the outcome of a vote on legislation that only affects England. As far as I know there have but 2 or 3 examples of this over the past 15 years. There's no need for change, specially knee-jerk attempts to lock in a partisan majority. I and many other English people will not want their government made more expensive and buearcractic from a sledgehammer approach to an "unfairness" that almost never happens in practice.
@SouthamObserver forgets that there are 20 opposition days on the floor of the House of Commons in each Session. If fifteen are allocated to the official opposition, that is enough parliamentary time to pass at least five public bills, if one day is allocated for second reading, another for report and third reading, and a third for consideration of Lords amendments. Such bills (e.g. on English health or education) are the sort which are never committed to a committee of the whole House.
OK, fair enough, you are defining an English bill as a bill which contains ANY provision, however small which would fall within the competencies of devolved administrations of their respective countries. This might create an issue where the devolved competencies are different in say Scotland and Wales, but is the first coherent definition i've heard. It does potentially create the problem in reverse however. How do you prevent a UK bill being converted into an English bill by the insertion of an unrelated English only clause. I suppose you could try to write the legislation so that any bill containing English only matters could ONLY contain English only matters. The interesting question however is what happens if the UK Parliament decides to devolve MORE power to "England" than is available to devolved assemblies...
Alex, the point you raise is a good one and is why a separate English Parliament is not - to my mind - the answer.
Given that there are differing levels of devolution to Scotland, Wales and NI it would be necessary for the Speaker - under legal advisement - to define who was able to vote on an issue. It would not simply be a case of English or UK. In some cases Welsh MPs would be voting alongside their English colleagues with Scots MPs barred due to the level of devolution.
It really isn't that difficult and would be made all the easier if some form of standard devolution was applied across the whole of the UK.
Who gets to choose the Speaker? It makes that role even more important - and political - than it is now.
Apologies, I have been using the Speaker as shorthand. I was only considering that he would be passing on a more considered decision that had been made in exactly the same way bills are nominated today as being matters for the devolved Parliaments/Assemblies.
Looks like National could get a majority at the third time of asking, first time a governing party has increased its share when in government for so long, again Cameron will be pleased to hear that news
Mr. Fire, utter tosh. As for locking in a majority, we have elections every 4-5 years when people can vote for whomever they like. As Labour found in Scotland, people don't always vote the way politicians expect.
Edited extra bit: P3 over, will see about a potential bet (perhaps less likely due to possibility of rain).
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.
But when something affecting the SW comes up, they can vote on it, as can MPs from the NW (in this example). It's a consequence of living in the same political unit. By contrast, MPs from Scotland can also vote on HS2 but no such reciprocal arrangement applies for MPs in the SW. (I don't know if this is the best example as I'm doubtful all aspects of it are devolved powers but let's run with it as an example; other policy areas would certainly apply)
It is not whether a specific proposal affects all areas equally; it's about representatives from all areas having equivalent powers. Technically, EV4EL doesn't resolve that as the Scottish MP wouldn't even be able to vote on devolved matters affecting his or her own constituency whereas the English one would, but it's a step in the right direction and others may follow to sort out the remainder when there's more consensus on the matter.
Of course EV4EL is not anywhere near "equality" with Scotland as long as the Govt of the day controls the Parliamentary timetable. An opposition English majority could only ever block legislation that is proposed by the Govt of the day. It could never be a positive force for introducing legislation.
So the Scottish electorate gets to vote for politicians committed to positive change for their perceived good of the country. Under EV4EL (where it makes a difference) the English electorate doesn't get to vote for positive change, only for the maintenance of the status quo.
It really isn't that difficult and would be made all the easier if some form of standard devolution was applied across the whole of the UK.
Symmetrical devolution is the only logical answer, but is practically impossible. The Northern Irish Assembly, for example, neither wants nor could exercise the taxation powers which have been, and are being devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
Who gets to choose the Speaker? It makes that role even more important - and political - than it is now.
This is not a serious objection. The Speaker already has similar functions in relation to the certification of public bills under the Parliament Act 1911.
@SouthamObserver forgets that there are 20 opposition days on the floor of the House of Commons in each Session. If fifteen are allocated to the official opposition, that is enough parliamentary time to pass at least five public bills, if one day is allocated for second reading, another for report and third reading, and a third for consideration of Lords amendments. Such bills (e.g. on English health or education) are the sort which are never committed to a committee of the whole House.
Well, then, let's see if that is proposed. I have my doubts.
With DevoMax the problem becomes realised on a daily basis. It cannot be simply unanswered. England has been ignored for too long, and I hope Miliband gets hammered for his weasel words on this matter.
If Cameron won 30 MPs in Scotland in 2015 that would not diminish the need for an English Parliament a jot.
Nonsense, the WLQ is and will continue to be irrelevant unless removing the votes of Scottish MPs changes the outcome of a vote on legislation that only affects England. As far as I know there have but 2 or 3 examples of this over the past 15 years. There's no need for change, specially knee-jerk attempts to lock in a partisan majority. I and many other English people will not want their government made more expensive and buearcractic from a sledgehammer approach to an "unfairness" that almost never happens in practice.
The mere existence of EV4EL will change attitudes; it is not about arguing over specific examples.
When the new system is in place, devolved matters will be dealt with by the representatives of the people of that region. That is fair, reasonable, and is (seemingly) a dividing line between Tories and Labour.
With DevoMax the problem becomes realised on a daily basis. It cannot be simply unanswered. England has been ignored for too long, and I hope Miliband gets hammered for his weasel words on this matter.
If Cameron won 30 MPs in Scotland in 2015 that would not diminish the need for an English Parliament a jot.
Nonsense, the WLQ is and will continue to be irrelevant unless removing the votes of Scottish MPs changes the outcome of a vote on legislation that only affects England. As far as I know there have but 2 or 3 examples of this over the past 15 years. There's no need for change, specially knee-jerk attempts to lock in a partisan majority. I and many other English people will not want their government made more expensive and buearcractic from a sledgehammer approach to an "unfairness" that almost never happens in practice.
Of course EV4EL is not anywhere near "equality" with Scotland as long as the Govt of the day controls the Parliamentary timetable. An opposition English majority could only ever block legislation that is proposed by the Govt of the day. It could never be a positive force for introducing legislation.
So the Scottish electorate gets to vote for politicians committed to positive change for their perceived good of the country. Under EV4EL (where it makes a difference) the English electorate doesn't get to vote for positive change, only for the maintenance of the status quo.
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.
MPs already have restrictions on what they can vote on. Devolution is one area, the EU is another. Technically, both could be overridden by repealing or amending the relevant Acts but then that's also true of EV4EL.
If Labour want to campaign against it then that's their privilege but their doing so shouldn't stop the other parties from going ahead anyway.
Who gets to choose the Speaker? It makes that role even more important - and political - than it is now.This is not a serious objection. The Speaker already has similar functions in relation to the certification of public bills under the Parliament Act 1911.
The issue is not whether the Speaker has the powers, it is about how he/she interprets those powers to decide whether legislation is England-only.
Mr. Observer, no reason English votes for English laws cannot be a stopgap. The alternative would seem to be sod all devolution whilst Scotland gets DevoMax, which would be democratically indefensible (or 'Labour Party policy', to give it the technical definition).
Pray explain why I should be shaking with rage and grabbing my pitchfork because maybe once every 5 years, the tiny portion of Scottish MPs in the HoC might change the outcome of a vote? Please also explain why it is a good use of my taxes to thicken up the government for this exceptionally rare event.
With DevoMax the problem becomes realised on a daily basis. It cannot be simply unanswered. England has been ignored for too long, and I hope Miliband gets hammered for his weasel words on this matter.
If Cameron won 30 MPs in Scotland in 2015 that would not diminish the need for an English Parliament a jot.
Nonsense, the WLQ is and will continue to be irrelevant unless removing the votes of Scottish MPs changes the outcome of a vote on legislation that only affects England. As far as I know there have but 2 or 3 examples of this over the past 15 years. There's no need for change, specially knee-jerk attempts to lock in a partisan majority. I and many other English people will not want their government made more expensive and buearcractic from a sledgehammer approach to an "unfairness" that almost never happens in practice.
Tuition Fees.
The irony though being that the Tories only opposed it for political reasons. As subsequent history has shown, they were really in favour of the policy or to the extent that they weren't it was only because it didn't go far enough.
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. ...
Mr. Fire, what extra taxes would be required, given nobody new would be employed by English votes for English laws? You've moved from irrational objections to fictional ones.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, you propose to institutionalise division and risk the future break-up of England. It may well be an even worse position than Miliband's.
The british constitution is unwritten and thus very flexible. The business of government would not stop just because the scots stopped voting on English Measures. It would simply go on in a different way that evolved naturally over time.
Mr. Observer, no reason English votes for English laws cannot be a stopgap. The alternative would seem to be sod all devolution whilst Scotland gets DevoMax, which would be democratically indefensible (or 'Labour Party policy', to give it the technical definition).
I agree. And the ridiculous thing is that because it is merely a blocking power it would make very little difference to a Labour government anyway unless it could not control its own backbenchers (see tuition fees).
Well, then, let's see if that is proposed. I have my doubts.
Unless it is proposed to remove opposition time in the House of Commons, which would be a constitutional outrage which no major party would attempt, it follows naturally from English votes for English laws when the official opposition has a majority of English MPs. It should be remembered that a programme motion is taken after the second reading of a public Bill, and is a vote on that Bill. If English votes for English laws passes, it would not be possible to bar Scottish MPs from voting on second reading, but permit them to vote on a programme motion on the same bill. The only way of blocking such legislation would be for a Minister of the Crown to refuse to lay a finance motion in respect of the Bill, but that would be so patently undemocratic and possibly unconstitutional (given the practice in relation to Private Members' Bills) that it would not stand.
Of course, it may be the case that English votes for English laws is not implemented, but we get the incoherent half measures advocated by McKay instead.
There's been a whole load of bollocks written, sung and argued about devolution and EV4EL on this thread and I'm not going to add to them.
Except to say that if anyone expects Cammo, Cleggo and this parliament to do anything about it, is flying over the cuckoos nest.
First, Labour will block any disadvantage to their Scottish MP's at least until the GE. Secondly, Until the conference season is over nothing will get started in any case.
The city that best represents the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish strands of the British Isles is Liverpool. The new British Parliament should be seated in Liverpool in a 21st century architectural masterpiece. The English Parliament in Westminster. The Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh but not not in the current monstrosity. The Welsh Parliament in Cardiff. The Irish Parliament in Dublin.
Pray explain why I should be shaking with rage and grabbing my pitchfork because maybe once every 5 years, the tiny portion of Scottish MPs in the HoC might change the outcome of a vote?
If you are happy with people from an what will be an autonomous region having a say in your government when it does';t affect them, that is up to you. Put it in your manifesto.
Personally I find the whole idea extremely offensive whether it affects my life for the good or not. It's just wrong.
The british constitution is unwritten and thus very flexible. The business of government would not stop just because the scots stopped voting on English Measures. It would simply go on in a different way that evolved naturally over time.
Indeed - it would mean UK governments having to win the approval of MPs representing English MPs in order to carry England-only legislation. But as Alex says, that is not what the Scots and the Welsh have. The only way to get an English government is to have an English parliament. And to get one of those we need a fundamental constitutional shake-up. And, as Farage has said, that means a constitutional convention.
With DevoMax the problem becomes realised on a daily basis. It cannot be simply unanswered. England has been ignored for too long, and I hope Miliband gets hammered for his weasel words on this matter.
If Cameron won 30 MPs in Scotland in 2015 that would not diminish the need for an English Parliament a jot.
Nonsense, the WLQ is and will continue to be irrelevant unless removing the votes of Scottish MPs changes the outcome of a vote on legislation that only affects England. As far as I know there have but 2 or 3 examples of this over the past 15 years. There's no need for change, specially knee-jerk attempts to lock in a partisan majority. I and many other English people will not want their government made more expensive and buearcractic from a sledgehammer approach to an "unfairness" that almost never happens in practice.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks!
The genie is out of the bottle now and over the next few weeks, UK voters will be asked whether they support EVfEL or not. Only then will we see if the WLQ is 'irrelevant' as you claim.
Of course EV4EL is not anywhere near "equality" with Scotland as long as the Govt of the day controls the Parliamentary timetable. An opposition English majority could only ever block legislation that is proposed by the Govt of the day. It could never be a positive force for introducing legislation.
So the Scottish electorate gets to vote for politicians committed to positive change for their perceived good of the country. Under EV4EL (where it makes a difference) the English electorate doesn't get to vote for positive change, only for the maintenance of the status quo.
This. Is. Absolutely. Correct.
Which only highlights the total injustice of the current arrangements.
Mr. Observer, no reason English votes for English laws cannot be a stopgap. The alternative would seem to be sod all devolution whilst Scotland gets DevoMax, which would be democratically indefensible (or 'Labour Party policy', to give it the technical definition).
Labour don't want DevoMax - they want DevoMin. They don't want the Scottish people to choose how they are taxed.
@SeanT - "Another possibility is English VETO over English Law. EVOEL"
That is essentially what EV4EL is. You don't get England-only legislation onto the statute books without the approval of the majority of MPs representing English constituencies. And in practical terms it would make almost no difference to anything, which is why Labour opposing the principle is so utterly stupid.
With DevoMax the problem becomes realised on a daily basis. It cannot be simply unanswered. England has been ignored for too long, and I hope Miliband gets hammered for his weasel words on this matter.
If Cameron won 30 MPs in Scotland in 2015 that would not diminish the need for an English Parliament a jot.
Nonsense, the WLQ is and will continue to be irrelevant unless removing the votes of Scottish MPs changes the outcome of a vote on legislation that only affects England. As far as I know there have but 2 or 3 examples of this over the past 15 years. There's no need for change, specially knee-jerk attempts to lock in a partisan majority. I and many other English people will not want their government made more expensive and buearcractic from a sledgehammer approach to an "unfairness" that almost never happens in practice.
Tuition Fees.
The irony though being that the Tories only opposed it for political reasons. As subsequent history has shown, they were really in favour of the policy or to the extent that they weren't it was only because it didn't go far enough.
The important point you are missing being that it was far easier for the Tories to consequently increase tuition fees because they had already been introduced by Labour. Thanks to Scots MPs.
Mr. Fire, what extra taxes would be required, given nobody new would be employed by English votes for English laws? You've moved from irrational objections to fictional ones.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, you propose to institutionalise division and risk the future break-up of England. It may well be an even worse position than Miliband's.
Nowhere did I say extra taxes were required, just that it would be spoor use of tax money that could be better spent elsewhere. You are hopelessly naive if you seriously think creating 2 classes of MPs, deciding whether every piece of legislation before Parliament was "English only" and requiring non-English MPs to attend some votes but not others will not increase Parliament's running costs. It's simply not justifiable.
Re your response to Mr Herdson, surely by that logic proposing an English Parliament would similarly facilitate the breakup of the United Kingdom?
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.
Ah, so you meant the southwest. That's quite a geographic issue you have there. And your argument does nothing of the sort: devolution is much bigger than that.
Westminster can remain largely as it is, acknowledging the fact that England is so preponderant that Scots do need a say in what England does. However, if Scots are allowed to vote on English laws, there should be an English committee which is able to veto the same English legislation, if most English MPs do not support the proposed law.
The problem with this proposal is that it concedes that the illegitimacy of non-English MPs enacting English legislation on education, health, local government and the environment against the wishes of English MPs, yet allows Ministers of the Crown administering that legislation to continue in office, but only on the basis of the votes of Scottish and Welsh MPs. It is an incoherent half-measure, and will fall as soon as one party has a majority in the House of Commons, but another has a majority of English MPs.
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.
Given Blair's majority wouldn't that have passed even if no Scottish MP's had voted?
The West Lothian question is a problem that exists largely in theory, not in practice. Given that (as things stand) Westminster retains the right in theory to legislate on devolved matters or even to abolish Holyrood I cannot see how non-english MPs voting rights can reasonably be restricted.
The best solution would actually be a Scottish Tory recovery at Westminster (perhaps not impossible given some of the referendum results) removing the incentive to play the "english card".
No, there was a major rebellion and the government's majority was cut to five. 46 Scottish Labour MPs voted with the government with the 5 SNP and 10 Liberal Democrat MPs representing constituencies in Scotland voting against. The 1 Scottish Conservative abstained.
The city that best represents the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish strands of the British Isles is Liverpool. The new British Parliament should be seated in Liverpool in a 21st century architectural masterpiece. The English Parliament in Westminster. The Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh but not not in the current monstrosity. The Welsh Parliament in Cardiff. The Irish Parliament in Dublin.
Dublin? Are we anexing Eire or giving away the six counties?
You don't get England-only legislation onto the statute books without the approval of the majority of MPs representing English constituencies.
That is not true, is it? There would be no tuition fees in England if it were not for Scottish labour MPs. Weren;'t the majority of English MPs against?
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.
Ah, so you meant the southwest. That's quite a geographic issue you have there. And your argument does nothing of the sort: devolution is much bigger than that.
Much bigger than a 15 year, £45bn project infrastructure project?
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....
I trust you realise how ironic that sounds, for it presupposes the possibility of SLAB even being willing to consider a deal with the SNP.
SLAB would rather cooperate with the Tories than the SNP. At all levels from the anti-indyref alliance to, e.g, coalitions in local councils where the SNP has IIRC in at least one case got more councillors than either of the other parties. And that is something when you remember what SLAB have been saying about the Tories for the last third of a century.
However, a new socialist party arising from Yes would be a different matter. But that is for the future (maybe).
There's been a whole load of bollocks written, sung and argued about devolution and EV4EL on this thread and I'm not going to add to them.
Except to say that if anyone expects Cammo, Cleggo and this parliament to do anything about it, is flying over the cuckoos nest.
First, Labour will block any disadvantage to their Scottish MP's at least until the GE. Secondly, Until the conference season is over nothing will get started in any case.
If Labour blocks EV4EL they will lose votes to the Tories in the GE. Cammo can promise that a majority Tory government will ensure it happens. As some up North said - let's do it!.
John Key just arrived at National victory night party at National Party HQ and working way through crowds. Now giving victory speech, to cheers of '3 more years' and says it a victory for their policies and agenda, thanks David Cunliffe for his concession call http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/s-position-strong-third-votes-counted-6086349
You don't get England-only legislation onto the statute books without the approval of the majority of MPs representing English constituencies.
That is not true, is it? There would be no tuition fees in England if it were not for Scottish labour MPs. Weren;'t the majority of English MPs against?
You might want to check the figures for the two votes involved as the LDs were also part of the issue - and also what the sole Scottish Tory MP in the current term did (IIRC he abstained as well as the SNP in at least one vote, but I cannot remember the details and may be muddling them with the NHS vote which also brought up the WLQ).
The city that best represents the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish strands of the British Isles is Liverpool. The new British Parliament should be seated in Liverpool in a 21st century architectural masterpiece. The English Parliament in Westminster. The Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh but not not in the current monstrosity. The Welsh Parliament in Cardiff. The Irish Parliament in Dublin.
Dublin? Are we anexing Eire or giving away the six counties?
I was putting forward a long term solution and ignoring actual aberrations.
I trust you realise how ironic that sounds, for it presupposes the possibility of SLAB even being willing to consider a deal with the SNP.
The cons now have common cause with the SNP, in my book. We can get a deal that suits us all if we can just get labour out of the way.
The Scots are not afraid of a tory England after autonomy. I reckon they see its fair that, in getting extra powers at home, they cede authority at Westminster
Only labour are afraid of a tory England. It might get seriously prosperous!!!
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.
Ah, so you meant the southwest. That's quite a geographic issue you have there. And your argument does nothing of the sort: devolution is much bigger than that.
Much bigger than a 15 year, £45bn project infrastructure project?
Yes. The Scottish government budget - for about 8% of the population - is around £30 billion per year.
So an order of magnitude much bigger, not taking into account the differing populations. And that is also leaving aside the fact that devolution is about much more than infrastructure projects.
OK, fair enough, you are defining an English bill as a bill which contains ANY provision, however small which would fall within the competencies of devolved administrations of their respective countries. This might create an issue where the devolved competencies are different in say Scotland and Wales, but is the first coherent definition i've heard. It does potentially create the problem in reverse however. How do you prevent a UK bill being converted into an English bill by the insertion of an unrelated English only clause. I suppose you could try to write the legislation so that any bill containing English only matters could ONLY contain English only matters. The interesting question however is what happens if the UK Parliament decides to devolve MORE power to "England" than is available to devolved assemblies...
Alex, the point you raise is a good one and is why a separate English Parliament is not - to my mind - the answer.
Given that there are differing levels of devolution to Scotland, Wales and NI it would be necessary for the Speaker - under legal advisement - to define who was able to vote on an issue. It would not simply be a case of English or UK. In some cases Welsh MPs would be voting alongside their English colleagues with Scots MPs barred due to the level of devolution.
It really isn't that difficult and would be made all the easier if some form of standard devolution was applied across the whole of the UK.
The more I've thought about it, the more I think an English parliament would be better than EVfEL. There's basically two options for EVfEL: a single UK administration approach and a dual administration approach.
If we had the single administration approach, during periods of different majorities, we would have UK ministers trying to pass legislation through an English committee they didn't have a majority in. That's fine for blocking legislation, but it means England is still at a disadvantage in legislation they want not being passed because of the blocking majority in the UK parliament. This seems to be unfair on England vis a vis the other home nations.
If we have a dual administration approach, with a separate English administration, I can imagine politics would be dominated by competing Prime Ministers and would lead to a very noxious political environment, with the two of them constantly at each others throats, fighting over which majority should vote on which piece of legislation and mass confusion among the public. This seems to be a mistake in preserving the union.
With a separate English parliament, however, we could have a clear difference between the two levels of government. It would be easier for the public to understand, and the divide of powers would be clearly defined. I think this is what we need.
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.
Given Blair's majority wouldn't that have passed even if no Scottish MP's had voted?
The West Lothian question is a problem that exists largely in theory, not in practice. Given that (as things stand) Westminster retains the right in theory to legislate on devolved matters or even to abolish Holyrood I cannot see how non-english MPs voting rights can reasonably be restricted.
The best solution would actually be a Scottish Tory recovery at Westminster (perhaps not impossible given some of the referendum results) removing the incentive to play the "english card".
No, there was a major rebellion and the government's majority was cut to five. 46 Scottish Labour MPs voted with the government with the 5 SNP and 10 Liberal Democrat MPs representing constituencies in Scotland voting against. The 1 Scottish Conservative abstained.
Regardless of what happened, the 2010 tuition fees changes passed by the Coalition did so without Scottish MPs support. So, at worst, Scottish MPs accelerated the introduction of Tuition Fees in England by a few years.
You are hopelessly naive if you seriously think creating 2 classes of MPs,,.... It's simply not justifiable.
So you advocate the abolition of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies? Seems sensible.
We also have the probability that Scots' Westminster MPs will be increasingly part-time as their executive is at Holyrood. Pay cuts or P45s all round seems sensible.
EV4EL doesn't create second class MPs; the whole process of devolution did that. EV4EL removes the class distinction.
Also, why do people keep mentioning just the Scots? There are 119 non English constituencies.
England would have a 63 seat Tory majority government now. It's ludicrous to imply that everything would have been just the same if England had had the government it voted for.
Final seat total looks like National 61, Labour 32, Greens 13, NZF 11, Maori 2, ACT 1, UNF1, so National just scrapes a majority, but Key says he will speak to ACT and UNF to try and ensure a stable government
The city that best represents the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish strands of the British Isles is Liverpool. The new British Parliament should be seated in Liverpool in a 21st century architectural masterpiece. The English Parliament in Westminster. The Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh but not not in the current monstrosity. The Welsh Parliament in Cardiff. The Irish Parliament in Dublin.
God no, politics is depressing enough without basing anything in that dump of a city. I propose, entirely coincidentally to my heritage, the traditional second city of England, and Adolf Hitlers choice to administer Nazi occupied Britain, Norwich, with it's beautiful city hall, Norman castle and cathedral and medieval guildhall. Norwich, capital city of federal UK, it just feels right ;-)
Westminster can remain largely as it is, acknowledging the fact that England is so preponderant that Scots do need a say in what England does. However, if Scots are allowed to vote on English laws, there should be an English committee which is able to veto the same English legislation, if most English MPs do not support the proposed law.
The problem with this proposal is that it concedes that the illegitimacy of non-English MPs enacting English legislation on education, health, local government and the environment against the wishes of English MPs, yet allows Ministers of the Crown administering that legislation to continue in office, but only on the basis of the votes of Scottish and Welsh MPs. It is an incoherent half-measure, and will fall as soon as one party has a majority in the House of Commons, but another has a majority of English MPs.
It probably is an incoherent half-measure but a half-measure is better than none and if it does prove to need further amendment down the line, fine. What won't happen then is a reversion to the current status quo. The risk is that not introducing it now *will* result in a continuation of the status quo as proposals fester in the long grass.
You are hopelessly naive if you seriously think creating 2 classes of MPs,,.... It's simply not justifiable.
England would have a 63 seat Tory majority government now. It's ludicrous to imply that everything would have been just the same if England had had the government it voted for.
And if the North of England ruled itself, it would have had a large Labour majority. So what? In a GE I am voting for who I want to be running the whole United Kingdom, not an arbitrary subset of constituencies.
but am a fan of regional parliaments and governments. There's no need for it to extend the number of politicians - reductions could be made at UK and local level (regional governments could easily mean county councils are no longer required but local government should be left for each region to decide).
I admit to not favouring Regional Assemblies because they just seem to be Councils but bigger. We already have enough Councils and the advantage of smaller, more focused councils is that they can be more focused on local issues.
However, your final quote is spot on. While I favour regional governments, it's clear that there's no great groundswell of support for them at the moment. By contrast, resolving the WLQ is a pressing matter and if there's a good quick fix which commands public support - which EV4EL does, that'll satisfy for now.
Actually my EV4EL-Max solution is much more drastic - abolish all devolved assemblies and only allow MPs to vote on issues affecting their country so that Scottish acts can only be voted on by Scottish MPs, ditto for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. UK-wide matters affect all the countries and therefor all MPs could vote. That seems much simpler to much but the pragmatist in me knows that too many political empires would have to crumble and therefore it would never happen.
I think that it is vital to make progress on this issue. The Scots have been promised progress and I think that the rest of us, whilst not losing too much sleep over it, would like equality of representation.
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.
Given Blair's majority wouldn't that have passed even if no Scottish MP's had voted?
The West Lothian question is a problem that exists largely in theory, not in practice. Given that (as things stand) Westminster retains the right in theory to legislate on devolved matters or even to abolish Holyrood I cannot see how non-english MPs voting rights can reasonably be restricted.
The best solution would actually be a Scottish Tory recovery at Westminster (perhaps not impossible given some of the referendum results) removing the incentive to play the "english card".
No, there was a major rebellion and the government's majority was cut to five. 46 Scottish Labour MPs voted with the government with the 5 SNP and 10 Liberal Democrat MPs representing constituencies in Scotland voting against. The 1 Scottish Conservative abstained.
Regardless of what happened, the 2010 tuition fees changes passed by the Coalition did so without Scottish MPs support. So, at worst, Scottish MPs accelerated the introduction of Tuition Fees in England by a few years.
I am sure that is comforting news for all those students who had to pay tuition fees for 12 years because of Scot's MPs.
The city that best represents the English, Welsh, Irish and Scottish strands of the British Isles is Liverpool. The new British Parliament should be seated in Liverpool in a 21st century architectural masterpiece. The English Parliament in Westminster. The Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh but not not in the current monstrosity. The Welsh Parliament in Cardiff. The Irish Parliament in Dublin.
God no, politics is depressing enough without basing anything in that dump of a city. I propose, entirely coincidentally to my heritage, the traditional second city of England, and Adolf Hitlers choice to administer Nazi occupied Britain, Norwich, with it's beautiful city hall, Norman castle and cathedral and medieval guildhall. Norwich, capital city of federal UK, it just feels right ;-)
Nothing wrong with Scousers, far from it, but I'd suggest Kendal. Geographical centre of the UK and with excellent communications - and at least one wartime airfield not too far away.
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. ...
I am.
Granting these regions the same degree of powers as we're about to give Scotland would effectively break up the UK into being a highly loose confederation. These regions - which people do not identify with in half the country - would have more powers than German lander, Canadian provinces or US states. It would really break up our country.
And again, the regions are terrible regions. The South East of England, hugely integrated around the economy of London, is separated from London for governance. Bedfordshire, Essex and Herts, essentially metropolitan commuter areas of London, are thrown in stupidly with East Anglia, a much more rural place. Lincolnshire is carved in half. Cornwall and Devon, who don't like each other at all, are thrown in together.
Comments
Cameron's statement yesterday is reminiscent of his EU referendum pledge - sounded good at the time and kept his party quiet for a few days - but no clear strategy and raised expectations which cannot be met.
The West Lothian question is a problem that exists largely in theory, not in practice. Given that (as things stand) Westminster retains the right in theory to legislate on devolved matters or even to abolish Holyrood I cannot see how non-english MPs voting rights can reasonably be restricted.
The best solution would actually be a Scottish Tory recovery at Westminster (perhaps not impossible given some of the referendum results) removing the incentive to play the "english card".
I wholeheartedly agree that the status quo must end. I partially agree with criticism of regional assemblies and voted against the NE one proposed a decade ago. But do think we need to give power to regions and town rather than centralising them. But you can't do that unless you have resolved making English laws. And that HAS to mean an English parliament - any arrangement short of this is absurd and frankly insulting.
Of to bank a £1.5k cheque from HMRC. Stopping those rich, but thick, northern child-benefit-monkeys residing in SW London - :spits: - does seem to be paying of for the average taxpayer!
:luverly-jubberly:
With DevoMax the problem becomes realised on a daily basis. It cannot be simply unanswered. England has been ignored for too long, and I hope Miliband gets hammered for his weasel words on this matter.
If Cameron won 30 MPs in Scotland in 2015 that would not diminish the need for an English Parliament a jot.
Is that out of line with the reality of what voters, more or less, want.
Re Robert's point on the Lords, there'd be no need to change things. The Lords would still be able to amend the legislation and even vote it down but ultimately the Parliament Act could be applied.
For instance, the self-serving thing to do would to have accepted Clegg's ridiculous suggestions for the HoL and get boundary reform in return. But wnough were principled enough to say it was garbage, regardless of the consequences
It isn;t a crucial issue, its a minor issue. Any MPs can propose any private member's bill, and it will get through if it has enough support, even cross party.
The English MPs would have a de facto right to pass their own laws based on numbers who could actually walk through divisions, given the new arrangements.
New coalitions of MPs would rise and fall as the new arrangements played out.
The issue of two types of MP is a nonsense. We already have it as some note and thus I think we can cope with some Scottish, Welsh, NI based MPs not voting on certain laws. The SNP MPs do it already.
This final point about aboe shows that already the SNP MPs seem capable of determining what laws are English only. Indeed the McKay commission suggested a committee voting response to the WLQ which (a) splits MPs in the to types anyway and (b) must have had a mechanism to determine which laws are English only. The bigger challenge is probably English/Welsh laws.
The point about West Country MPs voting on HS2 is ridiculous to be honest and gets to the heart of the issue. At the moment England does not exist as a political entity and it should be recognised as one. I don't care if a Cornwall MP votes on HS2 because he/she is an English based MP discussing an issue for that nation. If we did not allow MPs to vote on devolved issues within a country, we would never vote on anything. Indeed this criticism is born out of a desire to avoid, or at best a lack of consideration, that England is a nation and should have political recognition.
Finally, as I stated last night. I have no issue with the UK government serving as the English executive. It is in a sense imperfect and messy, but I acknowledge that is how things are. More than that, I accept that English based MPs have 85% of votes in UK, and that a UK minister would, with EV4EL, have to gain approval from England for their laws anyway improving democratic accountability.
One EP to rule them all, One EP to find them,
One EP to bring them all and in Westminster bind them.
In the Land of Britain where the Shadows lie.”
However, your final quote is spot on. While I favour regional governments, it's clear that there's no great groundswell of support for them at the moment. By contrast, resolving the WLQ is a pressing matter and if there's a good quick fix which commands public support - which EV4EL does, that'll satisfy for now.
Given that there are differing levels of devolution to Scotland, Wales and NI it would be necessary for the Speaker - under legal advisement - to define who was able to vote on an issue. It would not simply be a case of English or UK. In some cases Welsh MPs would be voting alongside their English colleagues with Scots MPs barred due to the level of devolution.
It really isn't that difficult and would be made all the easier if some form of standard devolution was applied across the whole of the UK.
As has already been pointed out, one of the most contentious issues in recent times - student tuition fees - was only imposed on England with the support of Scots MP's who knew full well it would not affect their own constituents.
Absolutely. All that's required is that the other non-English MPs do what the Scot Nat MPs do now. It already works pretty well.
If the Scots had any sense they would conspire to send only Scot nat MPs to Westminster from now on, as a proof of their good faith
What a clever idea.
Edited extra bit: P3 over, will see about a potential bet (perhaps less likely due to possibility of rain).
Do you know how anti-democratic that sounds??? could be written by Joseph Stalin.
It is not whether a specific proposal affects all areas equally; it's about representatives from all areas having equivalent powers. Technically, EV4EL doesn't resolve that as the Scottish MP wouldn't even be able to vote on devolved matters affecting his or her own constituency whereas the English one would, but it's a step in the right direction and others may follow to sort out the remainder when there's more consensus on the matter.
So the Scottish electorate gets to vote for politicians committed to positive change for their perceived good of the country. Under EV4EL (where it makes a difference) the English electorate doesn't get to vote for positive change, only for the maintenance of the status quo.
The mere existence of EV4EL will change attitudes; it is not about arguing over specific examples.
When the new system is in place, devolved matters will be dealt with by the representatives of the people of that region. That is fair, reasonable, and is (seemingly) a dividing line between Tories and Labour.
If Labour want to campaign against it then that's their privilege but their doing so shouldn't stop the other parties from going ahead anyway.
The issue is not whether the Speaker has the powers, it is about how he/she interprets those powers to decide whether legislation is England-only.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Herdson, you propose to institutionalise division and risk the future break-up of England. It may well be an even worse position than Miliband's.
No. it. is. not.
The british constitution is unwritten and thus very flexible. The business of government would not stop just because the scots stopped voting on English Measures. It would simply go on in a different way that evolved naturally over time.
Of course, it may be the case that English votes for English laws is not implemented, but we get the incoherent half measures advocated by McKay instead.
Except to say that if anyone expects Cammo, Cleggo and this parliament to do anything about it, is flying over the cuckoos nest.
First, Labour will block any disadvantage to their Scottish MP's at least until the GE.
Secondly, Until the conference season is over nothing will get started in any case.
The new British Parliament should be seated in Liverpool in a 21st century architectural masterpiece.
The English Parliament in Westminster.
The Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh but not not in the current monstrosity.
The Welsh Parliament in Cardiff.
The Irish Parliament in Dublin.
If you are happy with people from an what will be an autonomous region having a say in your government when it does';t affect them, that is up to you. Put it in your manifesto.
Personally I find the whole idea extremely offensive whether it affects my life for the good or not. It's just wrong.
The genie is out of the bottle now and over the next few weeks, UK voters will be asked whether they support EVfEL or not. Only then will we see if the WLQ is 'irrelevant' as you claim.
That is essentially what EV4EL is. You don't get England-only legislation onto the statute books without the approval of the majority of MPs representing English constituencies. And in practical terms it would make almost no difference to anything, which is why Labour opposing the principle is so utterly stupid.
Re your response to Mr Herdson, surely by that logic proposing an English Parliament would similarly facilitate the breakup of the United Kingdom?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3434329.stm
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/singapore-pre-qualifying.html
No bet, due partly to rain. Qualifying starts at 2pm.
Anyway, I'm off for a bit.
That is not true, is it? There would be no tuition fees in England if it were not for Scottish labour MPs. Weren;'t the majority of English MPs against?
SLAB would rather cooperate with the Tories than the SNP. At all levels from the anti-indyref alliance to, e.g, coalitions in local councils where the SNP has IIRC in at least one case got more councillors than either of the other parties. And that is something when you remember what SLAB have been saying about the Tories for the last third of a century.
However, a new socialist party arising from Yes would be a different matter. But that is for the future (maybe).
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/s-position-strong-third-votes-counted-6086349
http://gordonandsarahbrown.com/2014/09/gordon-browns-post-referendum-speech/
He makes some good points.
Making a political comeback whilst saying he is not making a political comeback.
The cons now have common cause with the SNP, in my book. We can get a deal that suits us all if we can just get labour out of the way.
The Scots are not afraid of a tory England after autonomy. I reckon they see its fair that, in getting extra powers at home, they cede authority at Westminster
Only labour are afraid of a tory England. It might get seriously prosperous!!!
We can;t have that.
So an order of magnitude much bigger, not taking into account the differing populations. And that is also leaving aside the fact that devolution is about much more than infrastructure projects.
If we had the single administration approach, during periods of different majorities, we would have UK ministers trying to pass legislation through an English committee they didn't have a majority in. That's fine for blocking legislation, but it means England is still at a disadvantage in legislation they want not being passed because of the blocking majority in the UK parliament. This seems to be unfair on England vis a vis the other home nations.
If we have a dual administration approach, with a separate English administration, I can imagine politics would be dominated by competing Prime Ministers and would lead to a very noxious political environment, with the two of them constantly at each others throats, fighting over which majority should vote on which piece of legislation and mass confusion among the public. This seems to be a mistake in preserving the union.
With a separate English parliament, however, we could have a clear difference between the two levels of government. It would be easier for the public to understand, and the divide of powers would be clearly defined. I think this is what we need.
We also have the probability that Scots' Westminster MPs will be increasingly part-time as their executive is at Holyrood. Pay cuts or P45s all round seems sensible.
EV4EL doesn't create second class MPs; the whole process of devolution did that. EV4EL removes the class distinction.
Also, why do people keep mentioning just the Scots? There are 119 non English constituencies.
England would have a 63 seat Tory majority government now. It's ludicrous to imply that everything would have been just the same if England had had the government it voted for.
I propose, entirely coincidentally to my heritage, the traditional second city of England, and Adolf Hitlers choice to administer Nazi occupied Britain, Norwich, with it's beautiful city hall, Norman castle and cathedral and medieval guildhall.
Norwich, capital city of federal UK, it just feels right ;-)
I think that it is vital to make progress on this issue. The Scots have been promised progress and I think that the rest of us, whilst not losing too much sleep over it, would like equality of representation.
And again, the regions are terrible regions. The South East of England, hugely integrated around the economy of London, is separated from London for governance. Bedfordshire, Essex and Herts, essentially metropolitan commuter areas of London, are thrown in stupidly with East Anglia, a much more rural place. Lincolnshire is carved in half. Cornwall and Devon, who don't like each other at all, are thrown in together.