Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Getting EVEL through will be a tough fight for the Tories

SystemSystem Posts: 12,218
edited May 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Getting EVEL through will be a tough fight for the Tories

A significant moment on this historic day in the commons was a point of order by Alex Salmond about the Tory plans to introduce EVEL (English Votes for English Laws) by changing the House’s standing orders.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    edited May 2015
    The SNP MPs are like the Clampetts

    http://bit.ly/1LKhM0W
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    Interesting

    Cracks appearing in team Burnham

    Word reaches Uncut that all is not well in the Burnham camp. Despite being the bookies’ favourite, worries about Andy Burnham’s strategy and performance have started to bubble to the surface among his supporters.

    Doubts are being raised about what has been dubbed the ‘inevitability strategy’.

    Immediately following the general election defeat, Andy Burnham’s campaign mobilised, rolling out endorsements from across the PLP to establish him as the runaway favourite, suck away nominations from potential rivals and make his victory seem assured.

    http://bit.ly/1dyrB71
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    I'm surprised the SNP haven't tried a charm offensive. They are, after all, in a consolidation phase: best to take root deep, like the Liberals.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    If the chippies really want independence, they only have to extend the Franchise to the English, and they'd be gone. But they're too scared that they would actually get it and have to look after themselves.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    I am sure this will see me labelled as thick, but I simply don't understand this 'it will create two classes of MP' argument - in what way is MPs from one region being able to vote on matters which will not affect them, with other MPs from another not being able to do the same, not two classes of MP?

    I'm not some rabid English nationalist - although some dispute the fact of our existence, I'm one of those people who is British first and English second - and I've not even opposed automatically to asymmetrical constitutional arrangements if that seems the best and fairest solution, but where asymmetry already exists and is perceived as unfair or unreasonable, it seems reasonable to take steps to address that, and I think the rather hysterical oppositional interpretations of what appears to have been proposed undermines any relevant points that might be being made, as when I see that level of, at first glance, overreaction, relevant points get lost for me.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    I think we should all take a moment to remember the fact Labour said "Devolution will kill Scottish Nationalism stone dead"
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 525

    I'm surprised the SNP haven't tried a charm offensive. They are, after all, in a consolidation phase: best to take root deep, like the Liberals.

    I think the SNP probably feel they have charmed enough of the Scottish electorate as it is.
    As for taking deep root, I think they would argue that their whole purpose does not require them staying any longer in the HoC than necessary
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656
    @kle4

    Yes
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Anyone watching John Mann in the HoC?

    Extraordinary
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    FPT:

    http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2011/01/21/social-mobility-where-next/

    Liz Kendall speaking in 2011 on why she became an MP, and why she supports good schools. Doesn't sound particularly Tory to me...

    Of course if she can establish an impression as the 'Blairite' candidate (which some in Labour apparently see as code for Tory from comments that fly around), she can then tack left pretty dramatically and not lose that impression I think - as long as it's not overwhelming. I believe it's been argued Ed M was not really that left wing in what he was offering, but he was perceived that way regardless of what he said or did.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,656

    I think we should all take a moment to remember the fact Labour said "Devolution will kill Scottish Nationalism stone dead"

    Yes, but that was *new* labour.

    New new labour is going to be completely different.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Saltire said:

    I'm surprised the SNP haven't tried a charm offensive. They are, after all, in a consolidation phase: best to take root deep, like the Liberals.

    I think the SNP probably feel they have charmed enough of the Scottish electorate as it is.
    As for taking deep root, I think they would argue that their whole purpose does not require them staying any longer in the HoC than necessary
    It'll be over by Christmas.

    Plan for a quick campaign but prepare for a long one.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    rcs1000 said:

    I think we should all take a moment to remember the fact Labour said "Devolution will kill Scottish Nationalism stone dead"

    Yes, but that was *new* labour.

    New new labour is going to be completely different.
    I thought the new tag was it's 'Now Labour'. Can't see it catching on, but it gave a few hours of mirth, which I appreciated.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,546
    kle4 said:

    I am sure this will see me labelled as thick, but I simply don't understand this 'it will create two classes of MP' argument - in what way is MPs from one region being able to vote on matters which will not affect them, with other MPs from another not being able to do the same, not two classes of MP?

    I'm not some rabid English nationalist - although some dispute the fact of our existence, I'm one of those people who is British first and English second - and I've not even opposed automatically to asymmetrical constitutional arrangements if that seems the best and fairest solution, but where asymmetry already exists and is perceived as unfair or unreasonable, it seems reasonable to take steps to address that, and I think the rather hysterical oppositional interpretations of what appears to have been proposed undermines any relevant points that might be being made, as when I see that level of, at first glance, overreaction, relevant points get lost for me.

    English MPs are currently second class MPs. EVEL simply ensures all MPs are treated equally.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    rcs1000 said:

    I think we should all take a moment to remember the fact Labour said "Devolution will kill Scottish Nationalism stone dead"

    Yes, but that was *new* labour.

    New new labour is going to be completely different.

    Nouveau Labour.

    We're all Europeans now.
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669
    FIFA - the other shoes start to drop: according to ESPN Nike announces it is 'cooperating' with the investigation of bribes and kickbacks with the Brazilian federation.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Interesting

    Cracks appearing in team Burnham

    Word reaches Uncut that all is not well in the Burnham camp. Despite being the bookies’ favourite, worries about Andy Burnham’s strategy and performance have started to bubble to the surface among his supporters.

    Doubts are being raised about what has been dubbed the ‘inevitability strategy’.

    Immediately following the general election defeat, Andy Burnham’s campaign mobilised, rolling out endorsements from across the PLP to establish him as the runaway favourite, suck away nominations from potential rivals and make his victory seem assured.

    http://bit.ly/1dyrB71

    David Davis is not leader of the Conservative Party. On the other hand, Burnham's drift in the betting means that soon we'll be reading on pb of punters with all green books.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Scott_P said:

    Anyone watching John Mann in the HoC?

    Extraordinary

    Do tell - he was barely off screens or not commenting online in the days after the GE, and had some very interesting comments to make.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    edited May 2015

    Interesting

    Cracks appearing in team Burnham

    Word reaches Uncut that all is not well in the Burnham camp. Despite being the bookies’ favourite, worries about Andy Burnham’s strategy and performance have started to bubble to the surface among his supporters.

    Doubts are being raised about what has been dubbed the ‘inevitability strategy’.

    Immediately following the general election defeat, Andy Burnham’s campaign mobilised, rolling out endorsements from across the PLP to establish him as the runaway favourite, suck away nominations from potential rivals and make his victory seem assured.

    http://bit.ly/1dyrB71

    David Davis is not leader of the Conservative Party. On the other hand, Burnham's drift in the betting means that soon we'll be reading on pb of punters with all green books.
    The bit that amused me was this

    “Andy is being defined as the left-wing choice, he needs to balance out his support. Idiots on Twitter like Eoin Clarke aren’t helping.”

    Eoin Clarke blocked both Keiran Pedley and I on twitter for pointing out to him he was posting misleading polling figures, and ramping up sub samples
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    kle4 said:

    FPT:

    http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2011/01/21/social-mobility-where-next/

    Liz Kendall speaking in 2011 on why she became an MP, and why she supports good schools. Doesn't sound particularly Tory to me...

    Of course if she can establish an impression as the 'Blairite' candidate (which some in Labour apparently see as code for Tory from comments that fly around), she can then tack left pretty dramatically and not lose that impression I think - as long as it's not overwhelming. I believe it's been argued Ed M was not really that left wing in what he was offering, but he was perceived that way regardless of what he said or did.
    There's something in this. I'm kind of considering Yvette over Andy for this reason: because of the fact she's considered a "centrist", she might actually have more freedom to pursue the kind of "left-wing" policies that Blair did. Whereas I fear Burnham would end up just like Ed in that he'd be so paranoid about being seen as "left-wing" that he'd just have a load of centrist mush as policy and end up with the worst of both worlds just like Ed did (appearing Tory-lite to left-wing people, and appearing left-wing to swing voters).
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    rcs1000 said:

    I think we should all take a moment to remember the fact Labour said "Devolution will kill Scottish Nationalism stone dead"

    Yes, but that was *new* labour.

    New new labour is going to be completely different.

    Nouveau Labour.

    We're all Europeans now.
    Right but wrong. European would be Neue Arbeit
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    @kle4 - MPs from the south-west will be able to vote on HS2, MPs without ports are able to vote on legislation on harbourmasters, etc, so MPs have always, and will always, have votes on issues that sometimes do not affect them or their constituents. However, they have always had the equal right to vote on every piece of legislation before the House.

    Only allowing MPs from some constituencies to vote on some Bills, or at some stage on some Bills, does then create a divide in the House between different types of MP, and this has a negative impact, in my view, particularly on the issue of government formation, since it is entirely possible that the House could have a majority of MPs in support of one potential Prime Minister, but a majority of English MPs in support of someone else. If Scottish MPs cannot vote in all divisions then they are less valuable as potential supporters of a PM. This is toxic.

    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    The House of Commons is a legislative body for the UK as a whole, and if you force it to double-up as an English-only Parliament some of the time by excluding the Scottish MPs, then I think that is one step on the road to it becoming an English-only Parliament all of the time.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    I'm confused as to why the majority can't change a Standing Order? Surely from time to time the Standing Orders have changed, Labour certainly used its majority to cause major changes to the Constitution. If a majority doesn't change a Standing Order, what does?

    As for the SNP, surely its in their interests to have two classes of MPs. Its getting what they want, the Scots writing Scottish laws and the English writing English laws. If we don't get EVEL, we should revoke devolution.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited May 2015
    kle4 said:

    I am sure this will see me labelled as thick, but I simply don't understand this 'it will create two classes of MP' argument - in what way is MPs from one region being able to vote on matters which will not affect them, with other MPs from another not being able to do the same, not two classes of MP?

    I'm not some rabid English nationalist - although some dispute the fact of our existence, I'm one of those people who is British first and English second - and I've not even opposed automatically to asymmetrical constitutional arrangements if that seems the best and fairest solution, but where asymmetry already exists and is perceived as unfair or unreasonable, it seems reasonable to take steps to address that, and I think the rather hysterical oppositional interpretations of what appears to have been proposed undermines any relevant points that might be being made, as when I see that level of, at first glance, overreaction, relevant points get lost for me.

    You probably think European leaders should have as much say over England's affairs as the electorate of the Sceptred-Isle. Sadly Labour's constitutional feck-up was a result of aggrevated malfeasance of Westminster's laws not for the benefit of those to whom Westminster should hold allegiance but for those to whom Westminster is an historical anathema.

    You obviously chose your first sentence in faux modesty: Being of the Left 'true', liberal equality - with the thought of the rule-of-law and equal-representation to the fore - must be despicable to one that havs long-flown-the-cockoos-nest!

    :shame-you-used-to-be-bright: *

    * May have confused you with a former member of this parish, a certain kle3 . Apologies to the letter if I am mistaken....
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Interesting

    Cracks appearing in team Burnham

    Word reaches Uncut that all is not well in the Burnham camp. Despite being the bookies’ favourite, worries about Andy Burnham’s strategy and performance have started to bubble to the surface among his supporters.

    Doubts are being raised about what has been dubbed the ‘inevitability strategy’.

    Immediately following the general election defeat, Andy Burnham’s campaign mobilised, rolling out endorsements from across the PLP to establish him as the runaway favourite, suck away nominations from potential rivals and make his victory seem assured.

    http://bit.ly/1dyrB71

    David Davis is not leader of the Conservative Party. On the other hand, Burnham's drift in the betting means that soon we'll be reading on pb of punters with all green books.
    I am running an all green book once Chuka backed out though biggest winner with Liz, and barely green with Andy. I also do well with HH, who seems to be doing quite well as interim leader. It is just possible that she could emerge as a unity candidate to go through to 2018 or so.



  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    kle4 said:

    Do tell - he was barely off screens or not commenting online in the days after the GE, and had some very interesting comments to make.

    He was ranting about child abuse. He may be right, and entirely justified in everything he said, but at first I thought he was drunk.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    If 90% of the population of the UK have their own set of MPs; why bother with the rest ? The UK becomes divided as a matter of fact.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited May 2015

    kle4 said:

    May have confused you with a former member of this parish, a certain kle3 .
    Not me I'm afraid.

    kle4 said:

    I am sure this will see me labelled as thick, but I simply don't understand this 'it will create two classes of MP' argument - in what way is MPs from one region being able to vote on matters which will not affect them, with other MPs from another not being able to do the same, not two classes of MP?

    I'm not some rabid English nationalist - although some dispute the fact of our existence, I'm one of those people who is British first and English second - and I've not even opposed automatically to asymmetrical constitutional arrangements if that seems the best and fairest solution, but where asymmetry already exists and is perceived as unfair or unreasonable, it seems reasonable to take steps to address that, and I think the rather hysterical oppositional interpretations of what appears to have been proposed undermines any relevant points that might be being made, as when I see that level of, at first glance, overreaction, relevant points get lost for me.

    You obviously choose your first sentence in faux modesty
    Not modesty, faux or otherwise, just some topics provoke direct personal attacks more than others, deserving or not, and this seems likely to be one of them.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    Interesting

    Cracks appearing in team Burnham

    Word reaches Uncut that all is not well in the Burnham camp. Despite being the bookies’ favourite, worries about Andy Burnham’s strategy and performance have started to bubble to the surface among his supporters.

    Doubts are being raised about what has been dubbed the ‘inevitability strategy’.

    Immediately following the general election defeat, Andy Burnham’s campaign mobilised, rolling out endorsements from across the PLP to establish him as the runaway favourite, suck away nominations from potential rivals and make his victory seem assured.

    http://bit.ly/1dyrB71

    David Davis is not leader of the Conservative Party. On the other hand, Burnham's drift in the betting means that soon we'll be reading on pb of punters with all green books.
    I am running an all green book once Chuka backed out though biggest winner with Liz, and barely green with Andy. I also do well with HH, who seems to be doing quite well as interim leader. It is just possible that she could emerge as a unity candidate to go through to 2018 or so.



    Harriet was the best "candidate" in 2010 as well.
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    Tim_B said:

    FIFA - the other shoes start to drop: according to ESPN Nike announces it is 'cooperating' with the investigation of bribes and kickbacks with the Brazilian federation.

    Got to love the Feds over this, Team America World Police.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    @kle4 - MPs from the south-west will be able to vote on HS2, MPs without ports are able to vote on legislation on harbourmasters, etc, so MPs have always, and will always, have votes on issues that sometimes do not affect them or their constituents. However, they have always had the equal right to vote on every piece of legislation before the House.

    Only allowing MPs from some constituencies to vote on some Bills, or at some stage on some Bills, does then create a divide in the House between different types of MP, and this has a negative impact, in my view, particularly on the issue of government formation, since it is entirely possible that the House could have a majority of MPs in support of one potential Prime Minister, but a majority of English MPs in support of someone else. If Scottish MPs cannot vote in all divisions then they are less valuable as potential supporters of a PM. This is toxic.

    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    The House of Commons is a legislative body for the UK as a whole, and if you force it to double-up as an English-only Parliament some of the time by excluding the Scottish MPs, then I think that is one step on the road to it becoming an English-only Parliament all of the time.

    Hear, hear !
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    As for the SNP, surely its in their interests to have two classes of MPs. Its getting what they want, the Scots writing Scottish laws and the English writing English laws. If we don't get EVEL, we should revoke devolution.

    It's in their interests precisely so that they can kick up a big fuss about it, argue endlessly about which bits of legislation it should or should not apply to, and be able to go back to Scotland and complain that the English have half-forced Scotland out of the Union by preventing them from voting in the Parliament of the Union.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    @kle4 - MPs from the south-west will be able to vote on HS2, MPs without ports are able to vote on legislation on harbourmasters, etc, so MPs have always, and will always, have votes on issues that sometimes do not affect them or their constituents. However, they have always had the equal right to vote on every piece of legislation before the House.

    Only allowing MPs from some constituencies to vote on some Bills, or at some stage on some Bills, does then create a divide in the House between different types of MP, and this has a negative impact, in my view, particularly on the issue of government formation, since it is entirely possible that the House could have a majority of MPs in support of one potential Prime Minister, but a majority of English MPs in support of someone else. If Scottish MPs cannot vote in all divisions then they are less valuable as potential supporters of a PM. This is toxic.

    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    The House of Commons is a legislative body for the UK as a whole, and if you force it to double-up as an English-only Parliament some of the time by excluding the Scottish MPs, then I think that is one step on the road to it becoming an English-only Parliament all of the time.

    This regional claim is just nonsense.

    MPs from the South West can vote on rail projects that affect their region or just the Midlands. Midlands MPs can vote on rail projects that affect their region or just the South West. The situation is identical. Whether this project affects you directly or not, the next one may - its swings and roundabouts.

    Scottish MPs can't vote on projects that affect their own region but can for England. English MPs can vote on projects that affect their own region but can't for Scotland. The situation is not the same and the Scottish MPs NEVER vote on their own devolved issues.

    Its morally indefensible. The whole purpose of democracy is that you take actions and are then held to account by your electorate - who is holding the Scottish MPs to account when they write English only laws that by law they can't write their own.

    Two classes of MPs were created two decades ago nearly when devolution occurred. Restoring a situation were MPs only vote on issues that could affect their constituents (whether this particular one does or not is moot) would restore one class of MP. The Scottish MPs have chosen to devolve their responsibilities to Holyrood.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,167
    Alistair Darling ‏@A_LordDarling 4 mins4 minutes ago
    Well after 9.30pm, and the attention-seeking nationalists are still in gang mentality in the commons. Don't they have second homes to go to?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surbiton said:

    If 90% of the population of the UK have their own set of MPs; why bother with the rest ? The UK becomes divided as a matter of fact.

    Welcome to the reality of devolution. It was inevitable, just ask Tam Dalyell.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591


    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    That is certainly one solution, but I cannot say I'm entirely convinced that it is the only way it must be, or at the comparison between non-HS2 affected regions voting on HS2 affairs and entire sections of legislative competence being open to some and not to others and the latter not being two classes of MP, which is the distinction that is being made when objections to this creating two classes is made.

    Whether this solution to the perceived problem is good or not, and I take your point about the dangers of the UK parliament doubling up as an English parliament as a sort of stepping stone, I just cannot see how we don't already have a clear, regionally focused (rather than issue focused) divide in our MPs, so the question is not 'Does this create two classes of MPs' because to my mind it seems we already have two, but 'Does this make the classes even more distinct in a bad way, rather than equalising the classes?'
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    The Tories could fairly easily pass a EVFEL arrangement if they negotiated with Labour to get cross party agreement. It would be a much more sustainable and longlived solution too.

    But if the SNP continue with their schooboy antics like today then they can easily be outvoted. If the SNP want to be listened to, then they would be well advised to develop some manners.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978
    Oh my.

    The Stop the War Coalition have come to FIFA's defence, because American went for FIFA because of FIFA's anti Israel policy

    http://bit.ly/1cjGAjz
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    edited May 2015
    Fifa's Director of Communications

    Mr de Gregorio rejects the idea that a new president is the simple solution to Fifa's problems:

    "You have a structural problem where you have the president elected by one body - namely the congress - and you have his ministers, like his government. elected by another body - namely by six different confederations.

    "So basically his government is a group of people representing the interests of their own confederation so you tell me now how a president has to deal with that?


    Classic nonsense. If something is not going to be the solution to all problems, obviously it should not even be attempted as a partial solution or step in the right direction.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-32884783

    He also talks about the reform process being hard and hurting - it really shouldn't hurt if it's to clean up a fetid mess of an organisation, one should be eager and happy about clearing the filth, putting better structures in place, even if it is hard. Indeed, improving things (which given he says the reforms were necessary he presumably thinks they were) should feel satisfying and invigorating I'd have thought.

    But I accept my low opinion of the scum of Fifa may taint my view of even innocuous comments they make.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    edited May 2015
    @Philip_Thompson - If you stop Scottish MPs from voting on some legislation that is before the House of Commons to which they have been elected then do not be surprised when the people of Scotland decide not to bother to send MPs to the House of Commons at all.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,978

    Alistair Darling ‏@A_LordDarling 4 mins4 minutes ago
    Well after 9.30pm, and the attention-seeking nationalists are still in gang mentality in the commons. Don't they have second homes to go to?

    Just caught the chap from Fife North East giving his maiden speech, very impressive.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Patrick Dunleavy
    @PJDunleavy
    When will Brexit referendum be? Rumour sweeping Commons is 1 massive May 2016 vote - Brexit - Scotland -Wales - London - Police Commisioners
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    @Philip_Thompson - If you stop Scottish MPs from voting on some legislation that is before the House of Commons to which they have been elected then do not be surprised when the people of Scotland decided not to bother to send MPs to the House of Commons at all.

    So be it.

    Why should that stop us from recognising the fact that Scotland decided to devolve their powers over health, education etc to Holyrood so their Westminster MPs are neither needed nor are democratically accountable to vote over health, education etc - that is the result of devolution.

    There are three equally valid solutions that I see for the Scots.
    1: Abolish devolution, go to a single union with equal classes of MPs.
    2: Keep devolution with English Votes for English Laws and Scottish Votes for Scottish Laws.
    3: Go independent.

    Trying to have your cake and eat it too with exclusively Scottish Votes for Scottish Laws AND Scottish Votes for English Laws is simply indefensible.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    @Philip_Thompson - If you stop Scottish MPs from voting on some legislation that is before the House of Commons to which they have been elected then do not be surprised when the people of Scotland decide not to bother to send MPs to the House of Commons at all.

    That's naturally part and parcel of that legislation being made irrelevant in Scotland by New Labour. Don't blame the Conservatives for that - we opposed the irresponsible devolution settlement at the time.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Danny565 said:

    Patrick Dunleavy
    @PJDunleavy
    When will Brexit referendum be? Rumour sweeping Commons is 1 massive May 2016 vote - Brexit - Scotland -Wales - London - Police Commisioners

    How will we be able to have both renegotiation and a proper debate about the EU in less than twelve months? Scotland got four years of national conversation about it. It would be a big mistake if the UK isn't allowed a quarter of that.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Danny565 said:

    Patrick Dunleavy
    @PJDunleavy
    When will Brexit referendum be? Rumour sweeping Commons is 1 massive May 2016 vote - Brexit - Scotland -Wales - London - Police Commisioners

    Sounds good. It should make for good turnout across the board, presumably some councils too.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,328
    Y0kel said:

    Tim_B said:

    FIFA - the other shoes start to drop: according to ESPN Nike announces it is 'cooperating' with the investigation of bribes and kickbacks with the Brazilian federation.

    Got to love the Feds over this, Team America World Police.
    The US is using the same tactics it used over LIBOR and other frauds. If you use US dollars, US banks then you get caught by US laws. And the US has been hot on corruption and bribery for some time now. If FIFA didn't realise this they haven't been seeing what's been in front of their noses for some time now.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Just caught the chap from Fife North East giving his maiden speech, very impressive.

    Compare and contrast with Geraint Davis who just finished.

    Completely barking
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    kle4 said:


    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    That is certainly one solution, but I cannot say I'm entirely convinced that it is the only way it must be, or at the comparison between non-HS2 affected regions voting on HS2 affairs and entire sections of legislative competence being open to some and not to others and the latter not being two classes of MP, which is the distinction that is being made when objections to this creating two classes is made.

    Whether this solution to the perceived problem is good or not, and I take your point about the dangers of the UK parliament doubling up as an English parliament as a sort of stepping stone, I just cannot see how we don't already have a clear, regionally focused (rather than issue focused) divide in our MPs, so the question is not 'Does this create two classes of MPs' because to my mind it seems we already have two, but 'Does this make the classes even more distinct in a bad way, rather than equalising the classes?'
    Asymmetric devolution is a mess, but I think EVEL compounds the error, rather than fixes it.

    I may be wrong, and there might be other national legislative bodies that exclude some of their members from some of their votes, in a way that is generally accepted as fair and reasonable.

    This could also end up being one of those classic British fudges that really doesn't make any particular sense, but works because everyone involved prefers it to the alternatives - which has pretty much been my defence of the status quo for many years. I just don't see it.

    Think of the consequence for the next general election. The Labour and Conservative manifestos will both have policies for the English NHS, Education system, transport, etc, and with the knowledge of EVEL the media will be all over the question of what happens if the Conservatives lose their UK majority, but retain a majority in England. It would make the campaigning in the election campaign just past around the potential influence of the SNP look tame in comparison. It would be the most effective campaign for Scottish Independence that the SNP could ever hope to devise.
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 525
    Danny565 said:

    Patrick Dunleavy
    @PJDunleavy
    When will Brexit referendum be? Rumour sweeping Commons is 1 massive May 2016 vote - Brexit - Scotland -Wales - London - Police Commisioners

    I would of thought that the electoral commission would advise against that. Totally different elections using different voting systems is not something that they would recommend especially after the fiasco that happened on Scotland in 2007.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591

    kle4 said:


    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    That is certainly one solution, but I cannot say I'm entirely convinced that it is the only way it must be, or at the comparison between non-HS2 affected regions voting on HS2 affairs and entire sections of legislative competence being open to some and not to others and the latter not being two classes of MP, which is the distinction that is being made when objections to this creating two classes is made.

    Whether this solution to the perceived problem is good or not, and I take your point about the dangers of the UK parliament doubling up as an English parliament as a sort of stepping stone, I just cannot see how we don't already have a clear, regionally focused (rather than issue focused) divide in our MPs, so the question is not 'Does this create two classes of MPs' because to my mind it seems we already have two, but 'Does this make the classes even more distinct in a bad way, rather than equalising the classes?'
    Asymmetric devolution is a mess, but I think EVEL compounds the error, rather than fixes it....This could also end up being one of those classic British fudges that really doesn't make any particular sense, but works because everyone involved prefers it to the alternatives - which has pretty much been my defence of the status quo for many years. I just don't see it.
    .
    I fear Scotland may already be independent by the next election, but it certainly does bear thinking about, and I may well end up concluding similarly to your summary as above - and fudging these issues to kick the issue down the road a while is something both we and the EU are really good at - but I do think the current debate is focused on false premises of really fine distinctions between whether this would create or amend two classes of MP, rather than taking a long hard look at the whole asymmetric devolution issue and trying somehow, against all odds, at coming to a longer term solution.

    Labour's constitutional convention idea was actually not a terrible one to that end I felt, though they had already come up with their plans for many of the issues (A Senate of the People and the Regions or whatever it was to be called), so why they were going to both I don't know.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Saltire said:

    Danny565 said:

    Patrick Dunleavy
    @PJDunleavy
    When will Brexit referendum be? Rumour sweeping Commons is 1 massive May 2016 vote - Brexit - Scotland -Wales - London - Police Commisioners

    I would of thought that the electoral commission would advise against that. Totally different elections using different voting systems is not something that they would recommend especially after the fiasco that happened on Scotland in 2007.
    Fiasco's make things more interesting.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    kle4 said:


    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    That is certainly one solution, but I cannot say I'm entirely convinced that it is the only way it must be, or at the comparison between non-HS2 affected regions voting on HS2 affairs and entire sections of legislative competence being open to some and not to others and the latter not being two classes of MP, which is the distinction that is being made when objections to this creating two classes is made.

    Whether this solution to the perceived problem is good or not, and I take your point about the dangers of the UK parliament doubling up as an English parliament as a sort of stepping stone, I just cannot see how we don't already have a clear, regionally focused (rather than issue focused) divide in our MPs, so the question is not 'Does this create two classes of MPs' because to my mind it seems we already have two, but 'Does this make the classes even more distinct in a bad way, rather than equalising the classes?'
    Asymmetric devolution is a mess, but I think EVEL compounds the error, rather than fixes it.

    I may be wrong, and there might be other national legislative bodies that exclude some of their members from some of their votes, in a way that is generally accepted as fair and reasonable.

    This could also end up being one of those classic British fudges that really doesn't make any particular sense, but works because everyone involved prefers it to the alternatives - which has pretty much been my defence of the status quo for many years. I just don't see it.

    Think of the consequence for the next general election. The Labour and Conservative manifestos will both have policies for the English NHS, Education system, transport, etc, and with the knowledge of EVEL the media will be all over the question of what happens if the Conservatives lose their UK majority, but retain a majority in England. It would make the campaigning in the election campaign just past around the potential influence of the SNP look tame in comparison. It would be the most effective campaign for Scottish Independence that the SNP could ever hope to devise.
    So that's why 40-odd years ago the West Lothian Question was posed to warn about this. New Labour naively assumed the WLQ would only hurt the Tories but it was posed by a Scottish Labour MP worried too about the effects on Scots.

    If the Conservatives maintain a majority in England then they should be the ones running the NHS, Education etc - call the Conservative leader the First Minister of England. Works for the other nations.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    Danny565 said:

    Patrick Dunleavy
    @PJDunleavy
    When will Brexit referendum be? Rumour sweeping Commons is 1 massive May 2016 vote - Brexit - Scotland -Wales - London - Police Commisioners

    Sounds good. It should make for good turnout across the board, presumably some councils too.
    It would be a mistake to hold it on a day when some parts of the country have other elections, and others don't. Particularly when the three big ones are all left wing parts.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    kle4 said:


    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    That is certainly one solution, but I cannot say I'm entirely convinced that it is the only way it must be, or at the comparison between non-HS2 affected regions voting on HS2 affairs and entire sections of legislative competence being open to some and not to others and the latter not being two classes of MP, which is the distinction that is being made when objections to this creating two classes is made.

    Whether this solution to the perceived problem is good or not, and I take your point about the dangers of the UK parliament doubling up as an English parliament as a sort of stepping stone, I just cannot see how we don't already have a clear, regionally focused (rather than issue focused) divide in our MPs, so the question is not 'Does this create two classes of MPs' because to my mind it seems we already have two, but 'Does this make the classes even more distinct in a bad way, rather than equalising the classes?'
    Asymmetric devolution is a mess, but I think EVEL compounds the error, rather than fixes it.

    I may be wrong, and there might be other national legislative bodies that exclude some of their members from some of their votes, in a way that is generally accepted as fair and reasonable.

    This could also end up being one of those classic British fudges that really doesn't make any particular sense, but works because everyone involved prefers it to the alternatives - which has pretty much been my defence of the status quo for many years. I just don't see it.

    Think of the consequence for the next general election. The Labour and Conservative manifestos will both have policies for the English NHS, Education system, transport, etc, and with the knowledge of EVEL the media will be all over the question of what happens if the Conservatives lose their UK majority, but retain a majority in England. It would make the campaigning in the election campaign just past around the potential influence of the SNP look tame in comparison. It would be the most effective campaign for Scottish Independence that the SNP could ever hope to devise.
    Why are we so scared of an English Parliament sitting in, say, York. 300 members.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,395

    kle4 said:


    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    That is certainly one solution, but I cannot say I'm entirely convinced that it is the only way it must be, or at the comparison between non-HS2 affected regions voting on HS2 affairs and entire sections of legislative competence being open to some and not to others and the latter not being two classes of MP, which is the distinction that is being made when objections to this creating two classes is made.

    Whether this solution to the perceived problem is good or not, and I take your point about the dangers of the UK parliament doubling up as an English parliament as a sort of stepping stone, I just cannot see how we don't already have a clear, regionally focused (rather than issue focused) divide in our MPs, so the question is not 'Does this create two classes of MPs' because to my mind it seems we already have two, but 'Does this make the classes even more distinct in a bad way, rather than equalising the classes?'
    Asymmetric devolution is a mess, but I think EVEL compounds the error, rather than fixes it.

    I may be wrong, and there might be other national legislative bodies that exclude some of their members from some of their votes, in a way that is generally accepted as fair and reasonable.

    This could also end up being one of those classic British fudges that really doesn't make any particular sense, but works because everyone involved prefers it to the alternatives - which has pretty much been my defence of the status quo for many years. I just don't see it.

    Think of the consequence for the next general election. The Labour and Conservative manifestos will both have policies for the English NHS, Education system, transport, etc, and with the knowledge of EVEL the media will be all over the question of what happens if the Conservatives lose their UK majority, but retain a majority in England. It would make the campaigning in the election campaign just past around the potential influence of the SNP look tame in comparison. It would be the most effective campaign for Scottish Independence that the SNP could ever hope to devise.
    The HoC Library briefing papers on EV4EL are well worth a read as to the problems it brings.

    Essentially, in my view, Westminster is trying to function as a combined UK and English Parliament, likewise the Government in London. Complete mess resolvable only by clear separation of the UK and English legislatures/executives.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited May 2015

    kle4 said:


    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament,

    That is certainly one solution, but I cannot say I'm entirely convinced that it is the only way it must be, or at the comparison between non-HS2 affected regions voting on HS2 affairs and entire sections of legislative competence being open to some and not to others and the latter not being two classes of MP, which is the distinction that is being made when objections to this creating two classes is made.

    Whether this solution to the perceived problem is good or not, and I take your point about the dangers of the UK parliament doubling up as an English parliament as a sort of stepping stone, I just cannot see how we don't already have a clear, regionally focused (rather than issue focused) divide in our MPs, so the question is not 'Does this create two classes of MPs' because to my mind it seems we already have two, but 'Does this make the classes even more distinct in a bad way, rather than equalising the classes?'
    Asymmetric devolution is a mess, but I think EVEL compounds the error, rather than fixes it.

    I may be wrong, and there might be other national legislative bodies that exclude some of their members from some of their votes, in a way that is generally accepted as fair and reasonable.

    This could also end up being one of those classic British fudges that really doesn't make any particular sense, but works because everyone involved prefers it to the alternatives - which has pretty much been my defence of the status quo for many years. I just don't see it.

    Think of the consequence for the next general election. The Labour and Conservative manifestos will both have policies for the English NHS, Education system, transport, etc, and with the knowledge of EVEL the media will be all over the question of what happens if the Conservatives lose their UK majority, but retain a majority in England. It would make the campaigning in the election campaign just past around the potential influence of the SNP look tame in comparison. It would be the most effective campaign for Scottish Independence that the SNP could ever hope to devise.
    I agree. The SNP used to abstain on votes irrelevant to them, but should not be obliged to do so. At the moment the SNP MPs are all new and so are hanging together, with todays silly antics as a result, but soon they will be on committees and interacting with other MPs, making friends and becoming part of the Westminster establishment. They will have more time for Westminster work (and for being led astray by the temptations of the Smoke) than most because most constituency work will be on devolved matters so handled by the relevant MSP.

  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    Interesting

    Cracks appearing in team Burnham

    http://bit.ly/1dyrB71

    Key sentence in that:

    Even the members of team Burnham most eager to take on Liz Kendall concede that if the race descends into a scrap between the two, Yvette Cooper could come through the middle and win.

    Just topped up on Yvette at 8.0 and 7.8. Ridiculous odds.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited May 2015

    @kle4 - MPs from the south-west will be able to vote on HS2, MPs without ports are able to vote on legislation on harbourmasters, etc, so MPs have always, and will always, have votes on issues that sometimes do not affect them or their constituents.
    Only allowing MPs from some constituencies to vote on some Bills, or at some stage on some Bills, does then create a divide in the House between different types of MP, and this has a negative impact, in my view, particularly on the issue of government formation, since it is entirely possible that the House could have a majority of MPs in support of one potential Prime Minister, but a majority of English MPs in support of someone else. If Scottish MPs cannot vote in all divisions then they are less valuable as potential supporters of a PM. This is toxic.

    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    The House of Commons is a legislative body for the UK as a whole, and if you force it to double-up as an English-only Parliament some of the time by excluding the Scottish MPs, then I think that is one step on the road to it becoming an English-only Parliament all of the time.

    This regional claim is just nonsense.

    MPs from the South West can vote on rail projects that affect their region or just the Midlands. Midlands MPs can vote on rail projects that affect their region or just the South West. The situation is identical. Whether this project affects you directly or not, the next one may - its swings and roundabouts.

    Scottish MPs can't vote on projects that affect their own region but can for England. English MPs can vote on projects that affect their own region but can't for Scotland. The situation is not the same and the Scottish MPs NEVER vote on their own devolved issues.

    Its morally indefensible. The whole purpose of democracy is that you take actions and are then held to account by your electorate - who is holding the Scottish MPs to account when they write English only laws that by law they can't write their own.

    Two classes of MPs were created two decades ago nearly when devolution occurred. Restoring a situation were MPs only vote on issues that could affect their constituents (whether this particular one does or not is moot) would restore one class of MP. The Scottish MPs have chosen to devolve their responsibilities to Holyrood.
    Is Scotland having its own Parliament any different from New York, Illinois, Alaska ......having their own HoR's? Hold on - each has their own Senate too !

    Or, Saxony, Bavaria.........

    Victoria, NSW........

    Alberta, Ontario..........
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 525
    surbiton said:

    Saltire said:

    Danny565 said:

    Patrick Dunleavy
    @PJDunleavy
    When will Brexit referendum be? Rumour sweeping Commons is 1 massive May 2016 vote - Brexit - Scotland -Wales - London - Police Commisioners

    I would of thought that the electoral commission would advise against that. Totally different elections using different voting systems is not something that they would recommend especially after the fiasco that happened on Scotland in 2007.
    Fiasco's make things more interesting.
    The fiasco in 2007 had over 140,000 spoilt ballot papers. A repeat in UK wide elections would equate to over 1 million. Not sure that would be good for democracy....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Saltire said:

    surbiton said:

    Saltire said:

    Danny565 said:

    Patrick Dunleavy
    @PJDunleavy
    When will Brexit referendum be? Rumour sweeping Commons is 1 massive May 2016 vote - Brexit - Scotland -Wales - London - Police Commisioners

    I would of thought that the electoral commission would advise against that. Totally different elections using different voting systems is not something that they would recommend especially after the fiasco that happened on Scotland in 2007.
    Fiasco's make things more interesting.
    The fiasco in 2007 had over 140,000 spoilt ballot papers. A repeat in UK wide elections would equate to over 1 million. Not sure that would be good for democracy....
    I would not want change to come in such a fashion for just that reason, but some might think such a disaster would be a good thing if it led to a move toward a consistent, and in their eyes better, electoral system in response to the fiasco.
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited May 2015
    First of all, the internal procedure of the House of Commons is entirely a matter for the House of Commons. It cannot be inquired into by any court (see article IX of the Bill of Rights). If a majority of MPs vote to amend the standing orders, then that is valid, and the Speaker is bound by such a motion.

    There is, however, a serious constitutional problem about what the Conservatives are suggesting. Merely because an Act of Parliament extends only to England and Wales does not mean that the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to make equivalent provision in Scotland. Whether the subject matter of legislation is reserved or devolved in Scotland (which is the only logical basis to decide whether Scottish MPs will have a vote in the House of Commons under the proposed standing orders) is a question of statutory construction of the Scotland Act 1998. Constitutionally, that is emphatically a matter for the courts, not the House of Commons.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Carnyx said:

    The HoC Library briefing papers on EV4EL are well worth a read as to the problems it brings.

    Essentially, in my view, Westminster is trying to function as a combined UK and English Parliament, likewise the Government in London. Complete mess resolvable only by clear separation of the UK and English legislatures/executives.

    Not necessary. Just because one part of the UK devolves its functions doesn't mean the entire nation has to.

    Every voter should have a representative who represents them on an issue. For education the Scottish voters representative is in Holyrood, while for defence their representative is in Westminster. For both the English are represented (as they have been for hundreds of years) in Westminster. If power is devolved away from Westminster for a region then that regions MPs should be non-participants in anything devolved.

    Its really not that complicated.
  • SaltireSaltire Posts: 525
    kle4 said:

    Saltire said:

    surbiton said:

    Saltire said:

    Danny565 said:

    Patrick Dunleavy
    @PJDunleavy
    When will Brexit referendum be? Rumour sweeping Commons is 1 massive May 2016 vote - Brexit - Scotland -Wales - London - Police Commisioners

    I would of thought that the electoral commission would advise against that. Totally different elections using different voting systems is not something that they would recommend especially after the fiasco that happened on Scotland in 2007.
    Fiasco's make things more interesting.
    The fiasco in 2007 had over 140,000 spoilt ballot papers. A repeat in UK wide elections would equate to over 1 million. Not sure that would be good for democracy....
    I would not want change to come in such a fashion for just that reason, but some might think such a disaster would be a good thing if it led to a move toward a consistent, and in their eyes better, electoral system in response to the fiasco.
    Nothing changed with the voting systems for the holyrood and local elections. (2 different types of PR). What did happen is that they stopped having the 2 on the same day
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    surbiton,

    Those examples are all ones of symmetrical devolution/federalism. Victoria can't vote on NSW issues where NSW can vote on Bavarian ones. So this is not like the Scotland-England situation at all.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,302

    Interesting

    Cracks appearing in team Burnham

    http://bit.ly/1dyrB71

    Key sentence in that:

    Even the members of team Burnham most eager to take on Liz Kendall concede that if the race descends into a scrap between the two, Yvette Cooper could come through the middle and win.

    Just topped up on Yvette at 8.0 and 7.8. Ridiculous odds.
    If Cooper has a chance to win she won't be overshadowed for long so the question is whether Burnham can hold his campaign together if he loses momentum. It could end up as a two horse race between Cooper and Kendall.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549

    kle4 said:


    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    That is certainly one solution, but I cannot say I'm entirely convinced that it is the only way it must be, or at the comparison between non-HS2 affected regions voting on HS2 affairs and entire sections of legislative competence being open to some and not to others and the latter not being two classes of MP, which is the distinction that is being made when objections to this creating two classes is made.

    Whether this solution to the perceived problem is good or not, and I take your point about the dangers of the UK parliament doubling up as an English parliament as a sort of stepping stone, I just cannot see how we don't already have a clear, regionally focused (rather than issue focused) divide in our MPs, so the question is not 'Does this create two classes of MPs' because to my mind it seems we already have two, but 'Does this make the classes even more distinct in a bad way, rather than equalising the classes?'
    Asymmetric devolution is a mess, but I think EVEL compounds the error, rather than fixes it.



    This could also end up being one of those classic British fudges that really doesn't make any particular sense, but works because everyone involved prefers it to the alternatives - which has pretty much been my defence of the status quo for many years. I just don't see it.

    Think of the consequence for the next general election. The Labour and Conservative manifestos will both have policies for the English NHS, Education system, transport, etc, and with the knowledge of EVEL the media will be all over the question of what happens if the Conservatives lose their UK majority, but retain a majority in England. It would make the campaigning in the election campaign just past around the potential influence of the SNP look tame in comparison. It would be the most effective campaign for Scottish Independence that the SNP could ever hope to devise.
    So that's why 40-odd years ago the West Lothian Question was posed to warn about this. New Labour naively assumed the WLQ would only hurt the Tories but it was posed by a Scottish Labour MP worried too about the effects on Scots.

    If the Conservatives maintain a majority in England then they should be the ones running the NHS, Education etc - call the Conservative leader the First Minister of England. Works for the other nations.
    That would be fine. 4 nations , as in football but not rugby !
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited May 2015

    @kle4 - MPs from the south-west will be able to vote on HS2, MPs without ports are able to vote on legislation on harbourmasters, etc, so MPs have always, and will always, have votes on issues that sometimes do not affect them or their constituents. However, they have always had the equal right to vote on every piece of legislation before the House.

    Only allowing MPs from some constituencies to vote on some Bills, or at some stage on some Bills, does then create a divide in the House between different types of MP, and this has a negative impact, in my view, particularly on the issue of government formation, since it is entirely possible that the House could have a majority of MPs in support of one potential Prime Minister, but a majority of English MPs in support of someone else. If Scottish MPs cannot vote in all divisions then they are less valuable as potential supporters of a PM. This is toxic.time.

    Sorry, but that is spectacularly, head-half-a-mile-down-a-mineshaft, missing the point. You need to focus on voters, not MPs.

    Yes, of course MPs have always had votes on issues which don't directly affect their constituents, but (before devolution) those were symmetrical. The point now is that Scottish VOTERS, through their MPs and MSPs, get two votes on the same issue: once on the NHS in Scotland, and again on the NHS in England. How in the name of heaven can that conceivably be justified?

    Of course, you are right when you say that " If Scottish MPs cannot vote in all divisions then they are less valuable as potential supporters of a PM". Yes, and quite right too. Scottish voters have already chosen a First Minister, with very substantial powers. Why in the name of heaven should they also get a second bite at the cherry, by having the same influence in choosing who will run England as an English voter gets?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    Interesting

    Cracks appearing in team Burnham

    http://bit.ly/1dyrB71

    Key sentence in that:

    Even the members of team Burnham most eager to take on Liz Kendall concede that if the race descends into a scrap between the two, Yvette Cooper could come through the middle and win.

    Just topped up on Yvette at 8.0 and 7.8. Ridiculous odds.
    I have no money in the leadership election but I have t agree, those odds seem crazy - buy it smells like the market could remain irrational longer than you could remain solvent and you end up holding a fantastic value loser.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    JEO said:

    surbiton,

    Those examples are all ones of symmetrical devolution/federalism. Victoria can't vote on NSW issues where NSW can vote on Bavarian ones. So this is not like the Scotland-England situation at all.

    I have no problem with EVEL - as long as it is a separate parliament. You are trying to get EVEL on the cheap.

    We are an extremely underrepresented country anyway.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surbiton said:

    Is Scotland having its own Parliament any different from New York, Illinois, Alaska ......having their own HoR's? Hold on - each has their own Senate too !

    Or, Saxony, Bavaria.........

    Victoria, NSW........

    Alberta, Ontario..........

    Yes, they're States within a Country. England is not a State. Westminster is our Parliament and has been for centuries. If the Scots want to walk away they can but no need to create a new artificial construct.

    Though if that was the answer, then it should have been done with an English Parliament at the same time as Scottish devolution. Why wasn't it?

    You don't see a situation where New York representatives and senators vote for Texan laws but can't vote on their own.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    Saltire said:

    kle4 said:

    Saltire said:

    surbiton said:

    Saltire said:

    Danny565 said:

    Patrick Dunleavy
    @PJDunleavy
    When will Brexit referendum be? Rumour sweeping Commons is 1 massive May 2016 vote - Brexit - Scotland -Wales - London - Police Commisioners

    I would of thought that the electoral commission would advise against that. Totally different elections using different voting systems is not something that they would recommend especially after the fiasco that happened on Scotland in 2007.
    Fiasco's make things more interesting.
    The fiasco in 2007 had over 140,000 spoilt ballot papers. A repeat in UK wide elections would equate to over 1 million. Not sure that would be good for democracy....
    I would not want change to come in such a fashion for just that reason, but some might think such a disaster would be a good thing if it led to a move toward a consistent, and in their eyes better, electoral system in response to the fiasco.
    Nothing changed with the voting systems for the holyrood and local elections. (2 different types of PR). What did happen is that they stopped having the 2 on the same day
    And sounds very appropriate too - I'm not saying in the face of a fiasco that a change in voting would happen, but I could see someone using it as the pretext for attempting it, or gathering more public support around a fringe issue by emphasising the 'different voting systems' as a key element in confusion. Merely a possibility, not a likelihood.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Bingo Richard, you've hit the nail on the head.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    Burnham's drift in the betting means that soon we'll be reading on pb of punters with all green books.

    Until yesterday my book was already all-green, with pretty much the same profit on Andy, Yvette or Liz, and a smaller profit (but still a profit!) on Mary.

    However, given the shift in the odds, I've gone more heavily into Yvette. Odds of nearly 7/1 are just absurd.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,302

    surbiton said:

    Is Scotland having its own Parliament any different from New York, Illinois, Alaska ......having their own HoR's? Hold on - each has their own Senate too !

    Or, Saxony, Bavaria.........

    Victoria, NSW........

    Alberta, Ontario..........

    Yes, they're States within a Country. England is not a State. Westminster is our Parliament and has been for centuries. If the Scots want to walk away they can but no need to create a new artificial construct.

    Though if that was the answer, then it should have been done with an English Parliament at the same time as Scottish devolution. Why wasn't it?

    You don't see a situation where New York representatives and senators vote for Texan laws but can't vote on their own.
    Yes the problem is that devolution is not symmetrical and it's not clear how EV4EL fits into a 'long-term constitutional plan' to coin a phrase. Salmond may be doing us a favour if he helps block it as it should focus minds on coming up with a more sustainable and coherent solution.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surbiton said:

    JEO said:

    surbiton,

    Those examples are all ones of symmetrical devolution/federalism. Victoria can't vote on NSW issues where NSW can vote on Bavarian ones. So this is not like the Scotland-England situation at all.

    I have no problem with EVEL - as long as it is a separate parliament. You are trying to get EVEL on the cheap.

    We are an extremely underrepresented country anyway.
    We have a Parliament already, its called Westminster. If 10% of the country wants Home Rule and wants to walk away from Westminster on certain issues then why should the remaining 90% have to double up their representation?
  • Tim_BTim_B Posts: 7,669

    Burnham's drift in the betting means that soon we'll be reading on pb of punters with all green books.

    I've gone more heavily into Yvette.
    Mind bleach :) Don't tell ED!
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    surbiton said:

    kle4 said:


    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    That is certainly one solution, but I cannot say I'm entirely convinced that it is the only way it must be, or at the comparison between non-HS2 affected regions voting on HS2 affairs and entire sections of legislative competence being open to some and not to others and the latter not being two classes of MP, which is the distinction that is being made when objections to this creating two classes is made.

    Whether this solution to the perceived problem is good or not, and I take your point about the dangers of the UK parliament doubling up as an English parliament as a sort of stepping stone, I just cannot see how we don't already have a clear, regionally focused (rather than issue focused) divide in our MPs, so the question is not 'Does this create two classes of MPs' because to my mind it seems we already have two, but 'Does this make the classes even more distinct in a bad way, rather than equalising the classes?'
    Asymmetric devolution is a mess, but I think EVEL compounds the error, rather than fixes it.

    I may be wrong, and there might be other national legislative bodies that exclude some of their members from some of their votes, in a way that is generally accepted as fair and reasonable.

    This could also end up being one of those classic British fudges that really doesn't make any particular sense, but works because everyone involved prefers it to the alternatives - which has pretty much been my defence of the status quo for many years. I just don't see it.

    Think of the consequence for the next general election. The Labour and Conservative manifestos will both have policies for the English NHS, Education system, transport, etc, and with the knowledge of EVEL the media will be all over the question of what happens if the Conservatives lose their UK majority, but retain a majority in England. It would make the campaigning in the election campaign just past around the potential influence of the SNP look tame in comparison. It would be the most effective campaign for Scottish Independence that the SNP could ever hope to devise.
    Why are we so scared of an English Parliament sitting in, say, York. 300 members.
    Because York is Nordic; Danelaw. It was only colonised by the Normans after an inter-Viking civil-war.

    Winchester is the heart of England. Why proffer our history and law to anyone else...?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited May 2015

    Burnham's drift in the betting means that soon we'll be reading on pb of punters with all green books.

    Until yesterday my book was already all-green, with pretty much the same profit on Andy, Yvette or Liz, and a smaller profit (but still a profit!) on Mary.

    However, given the shift in the odds, I've gone more heavily into Yvette. Odds of nearly 7/1 are just absurd.
    I still think for someone to win, he/she must finish at least second on the first ballot. Otherwise, they may be out completely. A 40-35-20-5 split does not help third or fourth.

    Ed won because his campaign worked very hard on the second vote !
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    surbiton said:

    kle4 said:


    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    That is certainly one solution, but I cannot say I'm entirely convinced that it is the only way it must be, or at the comparison between non-HS2 affected regions voting on HS2 affairs and entire sections of legislative competence being open to some and not to others and the latter not being two classes of MP, which is the distinction that is being made when objections to this creating two classes is made.

    Whether this solution to the perceived problem is good or not, and I take your point about the dangers of the UK parliament doubling up as an English parliament as a sort of stepping stone, I just cannot see how we don't already have a clear, regionally focused (rather than issue focused) divide in our MPs, so the question is not 'Does this create two classes of MPs' because to my mind it seems we already have two, but 'Does this make the classes even more distinct in a bad way, rather than equalising the classes?'
    Asymmetric devolution is a mess, but I think EVEL compounds the error, rather than fixes it.

    I may be wrong, and there might be other national legislative bodies that exclude some of their members from some of their votes, in a way that is generally accepted as fair and reasonable.

    This could also end up being one of those classic British fudges that really doesn't make any particular sense, but works because everyone involved prefers it to the alternatives - which has pretty much been my defence of the status quo for many years. I just don't see it.

    Think of the consequence for the next general election. The Labour and Conservative manifestos will both have policies for the English NHS, Education system, transport, etc, and with the knowledge of EVEL the media will be all over the question of what happens if the Conservatives lose their UK majority, but retain a majority in England. It would make the campaigning in the election campaign just past around the potential influence of the SNP look tame in comparison. It would be the most effective campaign for Scottish Independence that the SNP could ever hope to devise.
    Why are we so scared of an English Parliament sitting in, say, York. 300 members.
    Because York is Nordic; Danelaw. It was only colonised by the Normans after an inter-Viking civil-war.

    Winchester is the heart of England. Why proffer our history and law to anyone else...?
    Wasn't Jorvik part of Anglo-Saxon Northumbria before the Vikings arrived?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822

    Whether the subject matter of legislation is reserved or devolved in Scotland (which is the only logical basis to decide whether Scottish MPs will have a vote in the House of Commons under the proposed standing orders) is a question of statutory construction of the Scotland Act 1998. Constitutionally, that is emphatically a matter for the courts, not the House of Commons.

    Sure, what's the problem with that? It works OK in defining Holyrood's powers, so EVEL is just the mirror image of that. If the courts decide (or would decide) that Hoylrood has jurisdiction over some particular issue in Scotland, then by definition it becomes an EVEL issue in England. (I accept that Wales is a complication, but you get the point).
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    surbiton said:

    I still think for someone to win, he/she must finish at least second on the first ballot. Otherwise, they may be out completely. A 40-35-20-5 split does not help third or fourth.

    Ed won because his campaign worked very hard on the second vote !

    This is true, but it's too early to have a view on who will be eliminated in the first round (or first+second if there are four nominees).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,302

    Whether the subject matter of legislation is reserved or devolved in Scotland (which is the only logical basis to decide whether Scottish MPs will have a vote in the House of Commons under the proposed standing orders) is a question of statutory construction of the Scotland Act 1998. Constitutionally, that is emphatically a matter for the courts, not the House of Commons.

    Sure, what's the problem with that? It works OK in defining Holyrood's powers, so EVEL is just the mirror image of that. If the courts decide (or would decide) that Hoylrood has jurisdiction over some particular issue in Scotland, then by definition it becomes an EVEL issue in England. (I accept that Wales is a complication, but you get the point).
    Why should only the Scots have the luxury of choosing different representatives for the different tiers of government?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    surbiton said:

    Is Scotland having its own Parliament any different from New York, Illinois, Alaska ......having their own HoR's? Hold on - each has their own Senate too !

    Or, Saxony, Bavaria.........

    Victoria, NSW........

    Alberta, Ontario..........

    Yes, they're States within a Country. England is not a State. Westminster is our Parliament and has been for centuries. If the Scots want to walk away they can but no need to create a new artificial construct.

    Though if that was the answer, then it should have been done with an English Parliament at the same time as Scottish devolution. Why wasn't it?

    You don't see a situation where New York representatives and senators vote for Texan laws but can't vote on their own.
    Yes the problem is that devolution is not symmetrical and it's not clear how EV4EL fits into a 'long-term constitutional plan' to coin a phrase. Salmond may be doing us a favour if he helps block it as it should focus minds on coming up with a more sustainable and coherent solution.
    Proper EV4EL fixes everything (so long as there's capability for an English First Minister of the party of majority England even if not majority UK). It may not be symmetrical but it will work.

    The alternative sustainable plan is obvious - an English Parliament.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    One SNP mp could as easily make the same bogus point as 58.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited May 2015

    surbiton said:

    JEO said:

    surbiton,

    Those examples are all ones of symmetrical devolution/federalism. Victoria can't vote on NSW issues where NSW can vote on Bavarian ones. So this is not like the Scotland-England situation at all.

    I have no problem with EVEL - as long as it is a separate parliament. You are trying to get EVEL on the cheap.

    We are an extremely underrepresented country anyway.
    We have a Parliament already, its called Westminster. If 10% of the country wants Home Rule and wants to walk away from Westminster on certain issues then why should the remaining 90% have to double up their representation?
    Because the law under which they were elected did not state that they could not vote on certain matters. The reason Scot MPs do not vote on some English matters is purely by convention. There is no law which prevents.

    All MPs are equal in law.

    This convention bullshit has to go.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Tim_B said:

    Burnham's drift in the betting means that soon we'll be reading on pb of punters with all green books.

    I've gone more heavily into Yvette.
    Mind bleach :) Don't tell ED!
    I too am "Balls deep" in Yvette...
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    It seems to me that the argument over devolution and devolved powers misses the point. And deliberately misses the point. Devolution means the gradual or speedy breakup of the UK as a nation state. The people and government might not want that to happen, but Pandoras box was opened by a cowardly and greedy Labour administration and, to mix metaphors, all the kings horses and all the kings men won't be able to close it again.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited May 2015
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,591
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    JEO said:

    surbiton,

    Those examples are all ones of symmetrical devolution/federalism. Victoria can't vote on NSW issues where NSW can vote on Bavarian ones. So this is not like the Scotland-England situation at all.

    I have no problem with EVEL - as long as it is a separate parliament. You are trying to get EVEL on the cheap.

    We are an extremely underrepresented country anyway.
    We have a Parliament already, its called Westminster. If 10% of the country wants Home Rule and wants to walk away from Westminster on certain issues then why should the remaining 90% have to double up their representation?
    Because the law under which they were elected did not state that they could not vote on certain matters. The reason Scot MPs do not vote on some English matters is purely by convention. There is no law which prevents.

    All MPs are equal in law.

    This convention bullshit has to go.
    I have no problem with Scottish MPs voting on English matters. I have zero issue with any party which had a convention of them not voting on such matters not now following that convention, they have no need to do that. But the current system is imbalanced, regional MPs from different areas have different impact potentialities due to asymmetrical devolution, they may be equal in name but they are not in effect. Does this proposal make the situation any better? I'm not convinced, and I'd certainly prefer a wider focused proposal, even if it took more time to come up with, looking at the whole range of issues and implications that our current set up creates, but something should be done, even if this is not it.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    surbiton said:

    surbiton said:

    JEO said:

    surbiton,

    Those examples are all ones of symmetrical devolution/federalism. Victoria can't vote on NSW issues where NSW can vote on Bavarian ones. So this is not like the Scotland-England situation at all.

    I have no problem with EVEL - as long as it is a separate parliament. You are trying to get EVEL on the cheap.

    We are an extremely underrepresented country anyway.
    We have a Parliament already, its called Westminster. If 10% of the country wants Home Rule and wants to walk away from Westminster on certain issues then why should the remaining 90% have to double up their representation?
    Because the law under which they were elected did not state that they could not vote on certain matters. The reason Scot MPs do not vote on some English matters is purely by convention. There is no law which prevents.

    All MPs are equal in law.

    This convention bullshit has to go.
    That's factually incorrect. All MPs are not equal since some MPs can vote on their constituents education and others can't.

    Besides any law can be changed and we have a majority to change it. If Alex Salmond wants to speak about education there's a forum for him to do it in and it isn't Westminster.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    AndyJS said:
    The triumph of hope over experience.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    surbiton said:

    JEO said:

    surbiton,

    Those examples are all ones of symmetrical devolution/federalism. Victoria can't vote on NSW issues where NSW can vote on Bavarian ones. So this is not like the Scotland-England situation at all.

    I have no problem with EVEL - as long as it is a separate parliament. You are trying to get EVEL on the cheap.

    We are an extremely underrepresented country anyway.
    We have a Parliament already, its called Westminster. If 10% of the country wants Home Rule and wants to walk away from Westminster on certain issues then why should the remaining 90% have to double up their representation?
    Correct. There is no reason why the current English MPs cannot do the job. There are over 500 of them why spend a total fortune on more.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    surbiton said:

    Is Scotland having its own Parliament any different from New York, Illinois, Alaska ......having their own HoR's? Hold on - each has their own Senate too !

    Or, Saxony, Bavaria.........

    Victoria, NSW........

    Alberta, Ontario..........

    Yes, they're States within a Country. England is not a State. Westminster is our Parliament and has been for centuries. If the Scots want to walk away they can but no need to create a new artificial construct.

    Though if that was the answer, then it should have been done with an English Parliament at the same time as Scottish devolution. Why wasn't it?

    You don't see a situation where New York representatives and senators vote for Texan laws but can't vote on their own.
    Yes the problem is that devolution is not symmetrical and it's not clear how EV4EL fits into a 'long-term constitutional plan' to coin a phrase. Salmond may be doing us a favour if he helps block it as it should focus minds on coming up with a more sustainable and coherent solution.
    The sustainable and coherent solution is an end to devolution.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited May 2015

    surbiton said:

    kle4 said:


    If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).

    That is certainly one solution, but I cannot say I'm entirely convinced that it is the only way it must be, or at the comparison between non-HS2 affected regions voting on HS2 affairs and entire sections of legislative competence being open to some and not to others and the latter not being two classes of MP, which is the distinction that is being made when objections to this creating two classes is made.

    Whether this solution to the perceived problem is good or not, and I take your point about the dangers of the UK parliament doubling up as an English parliament as a sort of stepping stone, I just cannot see how we don't already have a clear, regionally focused (rather than issue focused) divide in our MPs, so the question is not 'Does this create two classes of MPs' because to my mind it seems we already have two, but 'Does this make the classes even more distinct in a bad way, rather than equalising the classes?'
    Asymmetric devolution is a mess, but I think EVEL compounds the error, rather than fixes it.

    I may be wrong, and there might be other national legislative bodies that exclude some of their members from some of their votes, in a way that is generally accepted as fair and reasonable.

    This could also end up being one of those classic British fudges that really doesn't make any particular sense, but works because everyone involved prefers it to the alternatives - which has pretty much been my defence of the status quo for many years. [SNIP]
    Why are we so scared of an English Parliament sitting in, say, York. 300 members.
    Because York is Nordic; Danelaw. It was only colonised by the Normans after an inter-Viking civil-war.

    Winchester is the heart of England. Why proffer our history and law to anyone else...?
    Wasn't Jorvik part of Anglo-Saxon Northumbria before the Vikings arrived?
    Yes, probably. But it was not part of Wessex. [Where is Coldstone when he is needed...?]

    English-law was initiated by the House of Wessex; England united by said House; and formalised by the Angevines: To what do we owe York (save the Roman Church)...?
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited May 2015

    Sure, what's the problem with that? It works OK in defining Holyrood's powers, so EVEL is just the mirror image of that. If the courts decide (or would decide) that Hoylrood has jurisdiction over some particular issue in Scotland, then by definition it becomes an EVEL issue in England. (I accept that Wales is a complication, but you get the point).

    In the abstract, this works. In practice, it doesn't, partly because the devolution statutes are not very well drafted. Take a recent example. Agriculture is devolved to the Welsh Assembly. Employment is not. Should Welsh MPs have a vote on the regulation of agricultural wages in England? If it a reserved matter in Wales, they should. If it is a matter devolved to Cardiff, they shouldn't. There is no way of answering whether or not it is a devolved or reserved matter save by recourse to litigation. These sorts of questions of statutory construction cannot be determined by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons or by the Speaker. They are matters for the courts. The example above generated litigation that ultimately had to be resolved by the Supreme Court (Attorney General for England and Wales v Counsel General for Wales [2014] 1 WLR 2622).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 52,302

    surbiton said:

    JEO said:

    surbiton,

    Those examples are all ones of symmetrical devolution/federalism. Victoria can't vote on NSW issues where NSW can vote on Bavarian ones. So this is not like the Scotland-England situation at all.

    I have no problem with EVEL - as long as it is a separate parliament. You are trying to get EVEL on the cheap.

    We are an extremely underrepresented country anyway.
    We have a Parliament already, its called Westminster. If 10% of the country wants Home Rule and wants to walk away from Westminster on certain issues then why should the remaining 90% have to double up their representation?
    Correct. There is no reason why the current English MPs cannot do the job. There are over 500 of them why spend a total fortune on more.
    Because unless we come up with a system that works consistently and is seen to work consistently for all parts of these islands then we will slowly see the UK dismembered until at best it consists of England and Wales only.

    On the numbers point, if we did have an English parliament then the number of UK MPs should be cut roughly in half.
This discussion has been closed.