Do you care to highlight the example you are referring to, and why the 'Tory donors' bit is relevant? After all, it implies that the deal was not awarded fairly, and I am sure you would not want to get OGH into trouble ...
I want the best health care possible, free at the point of use. I do not care if the NHS provides it to me, or a private healthcare system. And as regular readers know, I've had recent experience of both.
The deals are all awarded legally - that's the clear point. No one is accusing anyone of taking cash in envelopes. Its just an interesting point that business seeks influence over politicians and does so by giving them money. When Bernie Ecclestone gave Labour £1m and the ban on fag advertising suddenly no longer applied to F1, I don't think anyone suggested it was a bribe*. Nor the donors to both parties who become Lords. In this case its Virgin Care, run by Tory donors, who bid for and won the contract to provide palliative care to kids in Devon and Cornwall. They've won other contracts elsewhere. Circle Healthcare is run by Tory donors. They've won lots of contracts. The US health companies are falling over themselves to give money to a Tory party selling off the NHS one contract at a time. And before it was Tory ministers they were all donating to Labour ministers. Yes they are winning the contracts fairly and legally and its all above board. Its just funny that they feel the need to donate money to whoever happens to be in power at the time. Change of government, chane of recipient.
Its not direct corruption of individuals. Its not criminal. Its soft influence. And why is the profit motive bad in healthcare where the "free at the point of use" patient has zero choice but to use that provider? Do I have to spell it out?
*Actually a lot of people directly accused Labour of taking bungs. Its just that when the same thing happens with the Tories the donations are entirely coincidental and and questions arw apparently libellous.....
EVFEL is a necessary stop gap as part of the Vow. But all it does is buy time towards a deeper Constitutional Convention. It is no more than a blocking mechanism but brings no create capability or English executive. It just stops England getting stuff it doesn't want foisted on it. Good!
And since the English genie is out of the bottle the only sustainable long term answer involves an English Government and Parliament. Many of the current 'UK' minstries would simply become English ones over which the UK government and parliament had no say - for all the devolved matters.
The UK government and parliament would govern defence, foreign, AND SPENDING OVERALL. This is crucial. I think the devolved country governments should receive a federal block grant from the UK and be free to tax and spend on top of that as they see fit - BUT NOT TO BORROW. If the countries can borrow that implies the UK backstops them. Scotland could run a loony lefty spend, spend spend agenda and run up debts it can't service, for example. So as much tax and spend as each country wants but borrowing overall to be controlled at the UK level by No.11.
I find it surprising that people, including Nick Palmer, think that EVEL will be unworkable because politicians would not work together if one party was in control of the UK, and the other in charge of England.
Which is an odd thing to say: if they cannot, then frankly they should be thrown out as the incompetent party hacks they are.
We have had a coalition hold successfully together for nearly five years now involving two parties. Councils work successfully in coalition or as NOC all over the country. If the situation was to arise, the politicians should be mature enough to work together.
If our politicians are not mature enough to do that, then they are pathetic losers who should be nowhere near power.
EV4EL is a blocking mechanism, it is not a prescription for a UK government and an English one. All it would mean is that the UK government would need to carry English MPs with it if it were seeking to introduce legislation that affected England only. The only way to have a specifically English government would be to have an English parliament.
Why is the Tory party giving the same deal to England, Scotland and Wales seen as favoring the English? It is favoring each of the 4 (NI as well) equally. It is a pro Welsh, Irish. English and Scottish policy.
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.
There are no good solutions here, only damage limitation. As Tom Dalyell said yesterday, and endorsed by John Loony below, the Scottish parliament should ideally be abolished. Devolution has been toxic to the body politic and has left us with constitutional nonsense. Politicians seem to think that more devolution is the answer, rather like an alcoholic who thinks his problems will be solved by another drink.
In practice there will have to be EV4EL - but no English executive or parliament. The government of the day will just have to make sure it has English support for any English laws it proposes.
Of course, English support is very different to approval from MPs representing English constituencies. It is entirely feasible - very likely, in fact - that measures supported by parties representing over 50% of English voters could be blocked by MPs representing a minority of voters.
Without electoral reform, what is absolutely clear is that EV4EL is not a mechanism that will lead to English voters getting what they voted for or what they would like to see.
No you can't, because it isn't photoshopped and it isn't ridiculous. It is an official portrait of Her Majesty, taken a few years ago. The fact that you have criticised it proves that you are a horrid republican traitor and that you obviously want to be cut in half with a scythe.
Mr. Palmer, I don't care if there's gridlock (given how stupid new laws can be it may be an actively good thing). I care about England getting a fair deal.
And another point: if the Labour government only used private health resources to clear 18 month waiting lists, then why did Burnham open up the Hinchinbrooke contract to private providers in July 2009, and continued even after all public providers had dropped out of bidding in early 2010?
If you really believe that Labour only used private providers to clear backlogs, then Labour are taking you for a fool.
The Labour party did far more than use private providers to clear backlogs (itself largely a myth as 90% of the waiting list reduction was by funding better elective services in existing premises). That is why I left the party 12 years ago.
I suspect that Miliband and Burnham will thing differently this time round, but do not rewrite the past.
I'm not rewriting the past - all that you both say is true. But it DID start with the intention and practice of reducing waiting lists. Its just as time went on (and soft influence went on) that my lot decided that more and more and more private contracts were the right approach. I don't recall anything quite as unappealing as letting people profit from dying children though. And cancer care is next.
Its not a Labour or Tory partisan issue. Private healthcare have used lobbying and donations to promote their agenda with the decision makers and this is where we end up. That the Labour party managed to promote such appalling right wing policies is part of the reason we became unpopular. However, I do have to ask Foxinsox if supporting the LibDems - voting through a privatisation agenda worse than ours was - is the obvious response to leaving Labour for the same policy? Isn't this the problem with politics now - all 3 parties have basically the same policies on too many things?
Ever wonder how we managed to coalesce all these aryies to apply an agenda of a massive private health industry looking for profits? Again, it's not cash in envelopes or illegality, but it is corruption - of ideas - of most politicians. Buying influence indirectly over time is legal. But depressing. How long until we end up like America where politicians rely on donations and need them ever higher?
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
There is no long term viable solution that doesn't involve an english parliament.
Westminster doing two jobs doesn't work. All 4 nations need to have the same level of devolution and a federal administration handling macro economic and foreign policy.
It's pretty much the US model.
Only downside is that Wales will get more devolution than it wants, too bad.
I agree that's probably the best approach.
I do think that there will be a problem with the weight of England in the system, though - but I do acknowledge the @MorrisDancer Question (TM)
You can make a case for carving out London as its interests are very different to the rest of England. That would reduce England to c. 60% of the overall union.
To my mind the obvious next split would be a simple North/South divide. Perhaps we could use the old Britannia Superior/Inferior split with state capitals in York and Oxford.
We might need to work on the names, though ;-)
I would agree with the idea that EVEL isn't going to drive the change away from Westminster. More devolution to a more local level in England. I have friends in Northern England who are keen on this. I would have Manchester and Birmingham as the 2 capitals with a London assembly too.
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?
On topic, it's not supposed to pass, it's supposed to make Labour look bad for blocking it.
I'm not convinced it's worth the opportunity cost. With a well-regarded leader, Salmond crashing and burning and the LibDems eating their own heads, it would have been a great time to relaunch Scottish conservatism. There must be a lot of basically conservative voters up there who would vote Conservative if they didn't think the Tories were always treating them like the enemy.
Labour don't have the votes to block it by themselves. They'd need the Lib Dems to vote against the proposals too.
I don't buy the argument that EV4EL would make Scots contemplating voting Conservative turn against the party, providing that it was tied to delivering DevoMax, and delivering it before the election. That fact alone should assure Scots of the Tories treating Scotland with the respect Labour hasn't. Indeed, if Labour and the Lib Dems combined to block the legislation, I can't see it being anything other than a win-win in partisan terms, as well as the rather more important question of equity.
Nick Palmer [7.07] As ever, you make the same point that I was trying to make, but with far greater elegance.
But I do fear that the political passion is now with the Right, and that does not exclude a desire for personal violence against those who disagree with them, even if that is no more than nostalgia for the days of the horsewhip. I daresay most of our silly-clever posturing right-wingers would like to repeal the Ballot Act and allow landlords and employers to control elections.
I've made this comment before, but you appear to be the only poster who regularly suggests killing people, and now taking a horsewhip to you opponents.
Of course you seek to project these attitudes onto your opponents.
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 ...
Why is the Tory party giving the same deal to England, Scotland and Wales seen as favoring the English? It is favoring each of the 4 (NI as well) equally. It is a pro Welsh, Irish. English and Scottish policy.
How is it the same deal? Scotland - MPs elected to Westminster, a separate parliament and MSPs for devolved issues Wales - MPs elected to Westminster, a separate assembly and AMs for devolved issues Northern Ireland - MPs in Westminster, a separate assembly, MLA for devolved issues England as proposed - MPs in Westminster, a committee for everything as part of Westminster
If the Tories want to propagate English equality and parity it would propose an English parliament. Instead Garage has proposed that, and the Tories have proposed a bear trap for Labour that whilst still saving legislative affairs in England as inferior to the other nations, it might just give them a veto when they lose the 2015 election which might be enough to save Cameron's job.
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 ...
The difference is, Tories are good guys. Labour are bandits.
The Scots vote to stay in the union and the response is to make their 59 MPs second class ones. Eh?
The problems for the Tories are that that this looks partisan and petty and the issue is one that it is quite hard to explain.
The real answer is for the Tories to use the post-referendum disarray in SNP ranks to seek to win more seats in Scotland.
In what way are they second-class MPs? It would simply place them alongside MPs from England, Wales and N Ireland in being able to vote on legislation that affects the whole UK but not in devolved matters. Of course, they can't vote on those matters affecting their own constituents either as those are devolved to Holyrood but as I've said, I regard EV4EL as a temporary but essential step towards genuine devolvement at a regional level. Giving English MPs two jobs compared with others who have one isn't ideal but it's a lot better than the current situation.
I find it surprising that people, including Nick Palmer, think that EVEL will be unworkable because politicians would not work together if one party was in control of the UK, and the other in charge of England.
Which is an odd thing to say: if they cannot, then frankly they should be thrown out as the incompetent party hacks they are.
We have had a coalition hold successfully together for nearly five years now involving two parties. Councils work successfully in coalition or as NOC all over the country. If the situation was to arise, the politicians should be mature enough to work together.
If our politicians are not mature enough to do that, then they are pathetic losers who should be nowhere near power.
EV4EL is a blocking mechanism, it is not a prescription for a UK government and an English one. All it would mean is that the UK government would need to carry English MPs with it if it were seeking to introduce legislation that affected England only. The only way to have a specifically English government would be to have an English parliament.
I'm not arguing that there are not better ways forward. But the idea that EVEL is unworkable, and especially for the reasons Nick gave, is ridiculous. And it is a good step in the right direction, and would be a sign that politicians are taking the problem seriously.
The idea that we can get those 'other ways forward' quickly is also ridiculous. HoL reform is a classic example.
Why is the Tory party giving the same deal to England, Scotland and Wales seen as favoring the English? It is favoring each of the 4 (NI as well) equally. It is a pro Welsh, Irish. English and Scottish policy.
They are not offering the same deal to the English that the Scots and Welsh get. They have Parliaments - that is not on the table for England. We don't know what the Tories are offering because we do not yet know what they mean by EV4EL. Let's see the detail.
And another point: if the Labour government only used private health resources to clear 18 month waiting lists, then why did Burnham open up the Hinchinbrooke contract to private providers in July 2009, and continued even after all public providers had dropped out of bidding in early 2010?
If you really believe that Labour only used private providers to clear backlogs, then Labour are taking you for a fool.
The Labour party did far more than use private providers to clear backlogs (itself largely a myth as 90% of the waiting list reduction was by funding better elective services in existing premises). That is why I left the party 12 years ago.
I suspect that Miliband and Burnham will thing differently this time round, but do not rewrite the past.
I'm not rewriting the past - all that you both say is true. But it DID start with the intention and practice of reducing waiting lists. Its just as time went on (and soft influence went on) that my lot decided that more and more and more private contracts were the right approach. I don't recall anything quite as unappealing as letting people profit from dying children though. And cancer care is next.
Its not a Labour or Tory partisan issue. Private healthcare have used lobbying and donations to promote their agenda with the decision makers and this is where we end up. That the Labour party managed to promote such appalling right wing policies is part of the reason we became unpopular. However, I do have to ask Foxinsox if supporting the LibDems - voting through a privatisation agenda worse than ours was - is the obvious response to leaving Labour for the same policy? Isn't this the problem with politics now - all 3 parties have basically the same policies on too many things?
Ever wonder how we managed to coalesce all these aryies to apply an agenda of a massive private health industry looking for profits? Again, it's not cash in envelopes or illegality, but it is corruption - of ideas - of most politicians. Buying influence indirectly over time is legal. But depressing. How long until we end up like America where politicians rely on donations and need them ever higher?
You are the one using dying children as ammunition in your political rants. Classy.
The Scots vote to stay in the union and the response is to make their 59 MPs second class ones. Eh?
The problems for the Tories are that that this looks partisan and petty and the issue is one that it is quite hard to explain.
The real answer is for the Tories to use the post-referendum disarray in SNP ranks to seek to win more seats in Scotland.
In what way are they second-class MPs? It would simply place them alongside MPs from England, Wales and N Ireland in being able to vote on legislation that affects the whole UK but not in devolved matters. Of course, they can't vote on those matters affecting their own constituents either as those are devolved to Holyrood but as I've said, I regard EV4EL as a temporary but essential step towards genuine devolvement at a regional level. Giving English MPs two jobs compared with others who have one isn't ideal but it's a lot better than the current situation.
Why do you need this (rather unusual) temporary step? If the goal is genuine devolvement at the regional level, why not just do genuine devolvement at the regional level?
Some damning criticism of Cameron in the FT - complacency almost broke up The Union. The chillaxed PM should be axed - let Salmond and Brown call the shots for too long. Does he really have a clue about what happens next? He still has to convince his party that the proposals make sense. How he sells a job creation scheme for local or regional politicians to the voters could be a challenge.
Salmond's gamble in enfranchising wee kids months from finishing their education and excluding Scots in England (and elsewhere) might have paid off, likewise framing the question for a date of his choosing. However, Salmond's reputation as a political titan is overplayed, if his grasp of economics was so sound, why did he sound so vacuous over currency union, EU membership, debt and growth? His lack of preparedness for difficult questions on finances screwed the SNP. It isn't as if he had no time to sort out his positions. Cameron is a lucky general, but enemies didn't exploit his mistakes.
I find it surprising that people, including Nick Palmer, think that EVEL will be unworkable because politicians would not work together if one party was in control of the UK, and the other in charge of England.
Which is an odd thing to say: if they cannot, then frankly they should be thrown out as the incompetent party hacks they are.
We have had a coalition hold successfully together for nearly five years now involving two parties. Councils work successfully in coalition or as NOC all over the country. If the situation was to arise, the politicians should be mature enough to work together.
If our politicians are not mature enough to do that, then they are pathetic losers who should be nowhere near power.
EV4EL is a blocking mechanism, it is not a prescription for a UK government and an English one. All it would mean is that the UK government would need to carry English MPs with it if it were seeking to introduce legislation that affected England only. The only way to have a specifically English government would be to have an English parliament.
I'm not arguing that there are not better ways forward. But the idea that EVEL is unworkable, and especially for the reasons Nick gave, is ridiculous. And it is a good step in the right direction, and would be a sign that politicians are taking the problem seriously.
The idea that we can get those 'other ways forward' quickly is also ridiculous. HoL reform is a classic example.
We can get HoL reforms easily enough if one party wins a majority next year. That's the thing with back of the fag packet constitutional change - it invites constant self-interested tinkering from whoever is in power. And that is why a proper constitutional convention - such as the one the US had all those years ago - is by far the best solution. But it should be happening now and there is no reason it cannot sit even while a GE is taking place. It is just a matter of all the main parties agreeing it.
But you are right, in the meantime EV4EL is not a huge problem in principle. The devil will be in the detail, which is why it has not happened up until now. Labour ducked it, of course (even though it would have made no practical difference to its ability to pass legislation given its majority of English MPs for the whole time it was in power). But the coalition has also been in charge now for over four years and it has done nothing about it.
For example, if the Speaker decides what is English-only legislation, who gets to choose the Speaker?
Missed a lot of the discussions - has anyone yet answered the question of how you write the law to define an "English bill", without it being possible to amend it to a "UK bill" simply by adding a (potentially completely unrelated) clause which clearly applies to the whole of the UK?
Not a problem with devolved parliaments because their powers are clearly defined. The UK Parliament can vote on anything and link multiple issues together. Of course there is also the question of whether a Labour Govt could just write a bill reversing EV4EL. Would a Labour voter in England be more concerned about the West Lothian question, or whether the chances of Labour friendly policies being pursued being maximises. It is an interesting question whether EV4EL would pass in an English referendum, since a majority may well prefer the status ("anti Tory") quo.
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 ...
The difference is, Tories are good guys. Labour are bandits.
We have been here before. Until 1972 the former Northern Ireland Parliament at Stormont enjoyed full devo max powers. What was the messy, rough and ready, probably anomalous but characteristically 'British' answer to compensate the rest of the country? Simple. Just make the NI constituencies at Westminster far larger than their counterparts on the mainland.
Forget about the monstrosities of an English Parliament or the ghastly complexities of EV4ELs, simply reduce the number of Scottish MPs from 59 to, say, a maximum of 20. There is a case too - to a lesser extent - for doing the same for Wales and Northern Ireland (remember Callaghan's Labour Government in 1978 increased Ulster's representation, precisely because of Direct Rule!)
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).
Which is why it's an easy first step but not a final one. It's also the cheapest option, which would be popular.
3. An English Parliament introduces hundreds of new politicians representing the same people as 90% of the current MPs - not a popular idea.
I agree. It would also, though its sheer size, be a rival to the UK parliament, and I don't see how an English parliament works without an English government to go with it.
4. Devolution to regions struggles with the indifference to regions in much of England. Few in Nottingham, say, would want to be run by an East Midlands Parliament in, say, Derby, or vice versa.
That's true to a degree, though there clearly are areas with strong regional indentities. Labour cackhandedly tried to introduce regional assemblies to those areas first. In principle, I wouldn't have anything against asymmetric devolution to regions if the view of some is that they don't want it, with matters remaining with the MPs from the non-devolved areas. I suspect there'd soon be a change of mind though. As for the East Mercia, locate the capital somewhere small and innocuous.
5. English executive, Parliament and devolution with only residual powers in a British government, looking after defence etc., and only a residual (indirectly-elected?) British Parliament would be logical full devolution but so radically different to need a lot of discussion and persuasion.
There are eight months to the election. There's lots of time to talk and at least have the discussion. As I've said, the options aren't mutually exclusive over time.
EV4EL is genuinely unsuitable for a back-of-a-fag-paper decision. [snipped for size]
Parliament has bugger all else to do till April. I agree it shouldn't be a back-of-a-fagpacket solution but parliament can sift the wheat from the chaff in any proposal providing that there's a proposal tabled.
The Scots vote to stay in the union and the response is to make their 59 MPs second class ones. Eh?
The problems for the Tories are that that this looks partisan and petty and the issue is one that it is quite hard to explain.
The real answer is for the Tories to use the post-referendum disarray in SNP ranks to seek to win more seats in Scotland.
In what way are they second-class MPs? It would simply place them alongside MPs from England, Wales and N Ireland in being able to vote on legislation that affects the whole UK but not in devolved matters. Of course, they can't vote on those matters affecting their own constituents either as those are devolved to Holyrood but as I've said, I regard EV4EL as a temporary but essential step towards genuine devolvement at a regional level. Giving English MPs two jobs compared with others who have one isn't ideal but it's a lot better than the current situation.
I quite agree with you. Mr Smithson is being totally absurd. Quite hysterical even. The greater absurdity is the bcurrent situation where not only can Scottish MPs not vote on devolved matters they CAN and DO vote on purely English matters which have no effect on their own constituents and are therefore voting without any responsibility for their actions. When we try to correct this anomaly Mr Smithson has the nerve to suggest this is making Scottish MPs second class.
Currently Scottish MPs have practically nothing to do - virtually all the matters that English MPs might discuss at their constituency clinics are covered by their MSPs. One shining example might be if they have a complaint about their health service.
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?
On the other hand, leaving aside most proposals being unworkable, it is perfectly logical that the Scots should have to accept that their desire for greater devolution goes hand in hand with having weakened influence at Westminster. The fundamental question about devolving power is whether it is better to have full control at a local level, but little or no influence at the higher level or some influence at the higher level but that same influence at the local level. It's a trade off.
The Scots vote to stay in the union and the response is to make their 59 MPs second class ones. Eh?
The problems for the Tories are that that this looks partisan and petty and the issue is one that it is quite hard to explain.
The real answer is for the Tories to use the post-referendum disarray in SNP ranks to seek to win more seats in Scotland.
In what way are they second-class MPs? It would simply place them alongside MPs from England, Wales and N Ireland in being able to vote on legislation that affects the whole UK but not in devolved matters. Of course, they can't vote on those matters affecting their own constituents either as those are devolved to Holyrood but as I've said, I regard EV4EL as a temporary but essential step towards genuine devolvement at a regional level. Giving English MPs two jobs compared with others who have one isn't ideal but it's a lot better than the current situation.
Why do you need this (rather unusual) temporary step? If the goal is genuine devolvement at the regional level, why not just do genuine devolvement at the regional level?
Because of that little word 'if'. I think that Regional govt is not something that is being massively clamoured for in England but if it is then lets have a proper think about it. In any event its nothing to do with the WLQ its about local govt.
We have been here before. Until 1972 the former Northern Ireland Parliament at Stormont enjoyed full devo max powers. What was the messy, rough and ready, probably anomalous but characteristically 'British' answer to compensate the rest of the country? Simple. Just make the NI constituencies at Westminster far larger than their counterparts on the mainland.
Forget about the monstrosities of an English Parliament or the ghastly complexities of EV4ELs, simply reduce the number of Scottish MPs from 59 to, say, a maximum of 20. There is a case too - to a lesser extent - for doing the same for Wales and Northern Ireland (remember Callaghan's Labour Government in 1978 increased Ulster's representation, precisely because of Direct Rule!)
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?
That's a ridiculous straw man argument. No-one is talking about banning Labour. It was, of course, a Labour government that introduced legislation that made a victim of Nick Griffin when he was placed on trial, and cleared, for his opinions.
All viewpoints, unless inciting violence, have a place in any political discourse, no matter how unpleasant. To ban them simply plays to their persecution complex and persuades the persuadable that they have a point and are being 'kept quiet' to suppress the 'truth'.
If it is wrong to make a profit out of providing essential health care should you not be complaining about all the people and companies that currently do within the public NHS system? Medical equipment manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, the people that make ambulances, the doctors, nurses, and all other staff they all make money out of providing care to ill people. Is that wrong? Should all those companies be nationalised and the staff conscripted and made to work for just their bed and board?
I don't accept point 2, because it presumes that parties will want to have the same polices in different places. There's no logical reason why Labour should seek to implement the same health or education policies in rural wales as they'd do in urban london.
As for point 3, again I don't accept it. The straight forward answer is to reduce the number of MPs at Westminster. The US runs fine with 435 Congressmen for 320m people as the bulk of governance happens at the state level. 120 mps at westminster would be plenty. 500 MPs to run England.
Point 4 I accept. Regional identity in England isn't very strong.
Re point 2: politics just doesn't work like that in Britain or anywhere else. The question of e.g. whether to have free schools or privatise health delivery is seen as a matter of principle, not something you favour in rural Wales but oppose in urban Leicester. Clearly there are some (mostly uncontroversial) issues that vary with the region (but the big inter-party arguments are largely independent of location. With a Labour Minister and a Tory majority they will simply get stuck with whatever the status quo then is, until a clarifying election.
Re point 3: your idea is basically what I meant by option 5 - reduce Westminster and the British executive to a small number of people looking after common UK interests, which would be important (foreign policy, defence) but not involving a lot of people. I think it's a logical option, but a drastic change which almost nobody is current advocating (because the idea of scaling back the UK level to a rump is a big jump).
More likely, no-one is advocating it because those with the power to effect change like being on the Westminster gravy train and the feeling of power it gives them.
I think that Regional govt is not something that is being massively clamoured for in England but if it is then lets have a proper think about it. In any event its nothing to do with the WLQ its about local govt.
We don't "think" it's not wanted, we know. Regional assembles were voted down by the local population several years ago.
If National win that will be a boost for Cameron, as Key is arguably the world leader he is closest to philosophically, centre right but pro gay marriage and accepting of climate change, and the 2 are close friends apparently and regularly text each other
Even Jonah Lomu tweeted his support for Key, and he and another All Black could get into trouble for doing so on election day, Murray just avoided the problem by tweeting hours before polls opened
If National win that will be a boost for Cameron, as Key is arguably the world leader he is closest to philosophically, centre right but pro gay marriage and accepting of climate change, and the 2 are close friends apparently and regularly text each other
I'm wondering whether the offer of more devolution was that necessary or even effective in the Scottish poll. The large companies who suddenly announced potential job losses in the event of a Yes vote could have made more difference.
I didn't have a vote, but the reality of potential redundancy would have had more traction with me than some airy-fairy promise of political reforms to benefit another layer of local troughers.
And no doubt, the same thing will happen were we to have a 2017 European referendum. For that reason, I suspect Ukip may struggle to overturn the status quo then.
Whether necessary or not, the deed is done and can't be undone. We have to live with the consequences and make the best of them.
Excellent article.I think for the sake of clarity its best to deal with two issues separately. The first is how do we deal with EVFEL. The second is what English powers should be devolved and to what level of local government. Starting with West Lothian question.First of all a decision is required on what will be the new list of powers devolved to Scotland.In principle these same powers should then be devolved to an England only body This can be achieved by simply ensuring that only English MP,s at Westminster vote on English matters.De facto this is an English parliament (at no extra cost,) so we might as well call it one.Similar bodies with the same powers would be set up for Wales and NI if they want.Since there is already a timetable for the process I do'n't see why its not possible to do the rest of the UK before the May 2015 GE .
Now on to the second question English devolution.Assuming an English parliament is in place it would then be up to English MP,s post the GE to decide what powers they want to delegate and to which part of local government.My view is that the English voter swill not be happy with any changes that increase cost or add extra layers of bureaucracy I think what is required is first a thorough review. of existing local government.Currently we have a mixture of counties,distict and unitary authorities.I would favour a move to unitary authorities with the same powers being vested in this one level of government.Clearly this process of local devolution is,since it involves multiple existing structures,is going to take time.
Finally we have the issue of how to handle UK non "domestic" areas of power-defense,foreign affairs,finnacial stability,UK infrastructure,.As an interim these matters would be voted on by existing Westminster MP's.
"privatise health delivery" as Labour did when in power, and now say they oppose? Can anyone credibly say Labour will roll back the use of private companies if we are unlucky enough to get them back in power? No, they will increase their usage, just as they did when they were in power last time.
"have free schools"; they are just an extension of the academy programme set up by Labour, and a natural extension of that policy.
Then you have the laughable situation with tuition fees: a promise not to introduce them in a parliament, but the legislation is passed in that parliament to introduce them in the next parliament, and now you oppose them.
No sign of principles anywhere there. Yet somehow these 'matters of principle' which were so flexible when you have power, are rigid when you talk about EVEL.
Using private health resources to clear 18 month waiting lists. That's how Labour started the "privatisation " as is alleged. Personally I don't have an objection to contracting in private hospitals to do NHS work when the alternative is the patient waiting for over a year in pain.
Then we have now. Where Tory donors are awarded contracts to be the exclusive provider of palliative care for dying children for a profit - at the lowest viable cost. Not supporting making a profit out of dying children? That's my matter of principle. What's yours?
If they do it effectively and cheaper than the state (maybe a big if), what is the problem? People make profit out of other necessities, such as selling you food, and always have.
My opposition to the opposition to privatisation is this: you are prepared to have a less effective system just because you oppose private enterprise, in healthcare this means you are prepared to kill people for your "principles".
I work with people with long term health conditions, and the inaction of the NHS is breathtaking, it certainly does not seem to have the aim of returning people to health as quickly as possible so they can return to work and support themselves.
So far National has 49%, Labour 24%, Greens 10%, NZ First (NZ UKIP) 9%, Conservatives 4%, Internet Mana 1.4%, Maori 1.3%
Internet Mana look doomed their leader Hone Harawira looks to have lost his seat now behind with the remaining West auckland booths favouring LAbour, so will not bring in any seats on the coat tailing rule, Conservatives fall short of the 5% threshold.
Under MMP with redistribution of failed parties, National look like they could win an outright majority in a system designed to avoid such a result.
interesting Labour are running well ahead in the electorate votes compared to the party vote. Labour MPs more popular than the Labour party.
You are the one using dying children as ammunition in your political rants. Classy.
Some things shouldn't be profit making. Dying child as a profit stream? That's what's really classy....
And if the best provider is a profit-making enterprise? You would prefer to give dying children and their parents a poorer service because of something called "principle". Even classier.
Another referendum in Scotland within the next ten years is a certainty. Scots of working age voted for independence. Scotland is still in the UK because its pensioners wanted it to be (i.e. didn't trust Holyrood to fund their healthcare). Whoever is the next leader of the SNP will take this on board. The next referendum will go at least 3-2 for independence, if not 2-1.
I have also been amused by watching Tory Peebies ramping David Cameron as some sort of political colossus whose intervention alone kept the Scots in the UK. A reality check on this:
- we have no evidence whatsoever as to the effect of Brown's, Cameron's or anyone else's contribution. Anyone who says otherwise is ramping;
- during the final couple of weeks of the campaign, everyone forgot that polls have a Margin of Error. There was never a poll showing a YES lead outside that margin (3% IIRC).
***
However, ramp on, children. Don't let me stop you. And when you run out of rational arguments in support of your absurd position, just go for the personal abuse. It makes a certain type of personality feel good. (I have a sneaking regard for Malcolm G on this: knowing his position was wholly irrational, he invariably cut to the chase!)
I very much doubt there'll be another election within 10 years. For a start, it'll need an SNP administration, preferably with an outright majority or at least near one. Governments have a natural life when there is a ready-made opposition, as there is in Scotland, and when there are other parties again ready to take up the slack. The swing of the pendulum is against the SNP on that score: they may well win in 2016 (when it will be too soon for a revote unless severely provoked) but 2020/1 should be an election too far.
And there's the fact that North Sea oil is running out and by the time the SNP are back in power, there'll be a lot less of it left. And North Sea oil is what Scottish independence has always been about.
Jonathan Indeed, they seem to have a bit of a bromance, Cameron will certainly be one of the first to phone Key to officially congratulate him, though has probably texted him already
The Scots vote to stay in the union and the response is to make their 59 MPs second class ones. Eh?
The problems for the Tories are that that this looks partisan and petty and the issue is one that it is quite hard to explain.
The real answer is for the Tories to use the post-referendum disarray in SNP ranks to seek to win more seats in Scotland.
In what way are they second-class MPs? It would simply place them alongside MPs from England, Wales and N Ireland in being able to vote on legislation that affects the whole UK but not in devolved matters. Of course, they can't vote on those matters affecting their own constituents either as those are devolved to Holyrood but as I've said, I regard EV4EL as a temporary but essential step towards genuine devolvement at a regional level. Giving English MPs two jobs compared with others who have one isn't ideal but it's a lot better than the current situation.
Why do you need this (rather unusual) temporary step? If the goal is genuine devolvement at the regional level, why not just do genuine devolvement at the regional level?
I'm not sure "genuine devolvement at the regional level" is what is required. We didn't foist it on the Scots. You believe in top-down government. I don't.
The Scots vote to stay in the union and the response is to make their 59 MPs second class ones. Eh?
The problems for the Tories are that that this looks partisan and petty and the issue is one that it is quite hard to explain.
The real answer is for the Tories to use the post-referendum disarray in SNP ranks to seek to win more seats in Scotland.
In what way are they second-class MPs? It would simply place them alongside MPs from England, Wales and N Ireland in being able to vote on legislation that affects the whole UK but not in devolved matters. Of course, they can't vote on those matters affecting their own constituents either as those are devolved to Holyrood but as I've said, I regard EV4EL as a temporary but essential step towards genuine devolvement at a regional level. Giving English MPs two jobs compared with others who have one isn't ideal but it's a lot better than the current situation.
Why do you need this (rather unusual) temporary step? If the goal is genuine devolvement at the regional level, why not just do genuine devolvement at the regional level?
I'm not sure "genuine devolvement at the regional level" is what is required. We didn't foist it on the Scots. You believe in top-down government. I don't.
during the final couple of weeks of the campaign, everyone forgot that polls have a Margin of Error. There was never a poll showing a YES lead outside that margin (3% IIRC).
Christ, how wrong can one man be in one post, but I'll focus on this particular doozie by you.
It's almost like you're forgetting, that with less thane one week to go, there was an ICM poll that had Yes ahead by 8%, which by your own definition, is well outside the margin of error.
Well it would have been civil war. People like myself would have been booting SLAB out the door. Some of SLAB would be trying to stay and other in the would be rUK Labour party would be attacking me for facing reality.
So here's a question for you. Imagine if it had been only SLAB and not the rest of the Labour party fighting this battle. Would it have been a yes? I think maybe.
DavidL mentioned last night that Labours UK operation was very impressive and it was the activists and party members from south of the border that swung it as SLAB were pretty useless. He even said that it really only started to change when UK Labour got involved, plus they had to teach a new generation of activists how to win an election. No doubt that that UK Labour made the difference.
Messrs Max and @IOS and @DavidL - may I ask a question FPT? In your interesting comments on SLAB performance, I'm a bit confused. The Scottish Labour Party is formally designated as all the Labour Party north of the border (though, of course, it is really all one party based in London). So as head of SLAB, Ms Lamont is the boss of, for instance, Messrs Darling MP, Alexander MP and Murphy MP. Ae you using SLAB in that sense or a more restrictive one, please?
With respect to all these debates about EV4EL and WLQ, Charles Moore in Telegraph has eloquently laid out why none of it is likely to happen. Certainly not before the GE and then who knows after that. This fits the way I see things at the moment. We have, IMHO, "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Missed a lot of the discussions - has anyone yet answered the question of how you write the law to define an "English bill", without it being possible to amend it to a "UK bill" simply by adding a (potentially completely unrelated) clause which clearly applies to the whole of the UK?
Not a problem with devolved parliaments because their powers are clearly defined. The UK Parliament can vote on anything and link multiple issues together. Of course there is also the question of whether a Labour Govt could just write a bill reversing EV4EL. Would a Labour voter in England be more concerned about the West Lothian question, or whether the chances of Labour friendly policies being pursued being maximises. It is an interesting question whether EV4EL would pass in an English referendum, since a majority may well prefer the status ("anti Tory") quo.
I never worried at all about whether the people voting are Scottish or not. Unless you thought there was a real conflict of interest problem - which I don't see. Scottish MPs have constituents with the same problems as English MPs. There aren't that many of them. Best allow all MPs to vote on all matters - simple.
Rural NZ areas declare first, so that helps National, urban areas last, which will be more Labour, so National clearly won, but not yet certain of majority
But a Tory revival in Scotland would be no substitution for EVFEL. Scots Tories and LDs voting for increased tuition fees in England is just as unnacceptable as Labour ones doing the same.
I wonder if that's how people would feel if the WLQ didn't affect the partisan balance. A lot of countries have uneven levels of devolution but I don't think you often hear of people having a problem with it at the national level. Has anyone done the "MPs who can't vote on things" solution anywhere? And people who get very upset about Scottish MPs don't seem to be anything like as worried about Northern Irish or London ones. If Lab and Con had roughly equal numbers of Scottish MPs we wouldn't even be talking about it.
If Tories and Labour had roughly equal MPs in Scotland, it wouldn't affect the principle but it would affect how likely it was that the imbalance in powers would matter. But they don't.
As for London and NI, London has vastly fewer devolved powers and while NI is a better example (and one which to some extent bears out the first point about the impact in practice), the Assembly there is also a less powerful thing than Holyrood. It's natural that the focus is on the greatest degree of disparity but that doesn't mean that lesser ones can't be addressed if reform is to happen anyway.
One or two comments on events in New Zealand this morning. It's actually a lot closer than the basic numbers might suggest showing National with a huge lead. As is often the case with a dominant party, the others start coalescing as a means to forcing change.
Since the downfall of Helen Clark's Labour Government, the Labour Party has struggled to make an impact and Key has dominated but there's just a hint that might be changing.
With the impact of MMP, National will probably win 57-59 seats in the 121-seat chamber but need the help of ACT and United First (very small parties but their respective leaders have a seat so that helps) and the tacit support of Maori Party they have a wafer-thin majority.
On the other side, Labour, the Greens and New Zealand First under Winston Peters combine to around 45% of the vote but that might also deliver 55-57 seats for their bloc so it comes down to a few electorates (constituencies) and the strength of the list vote. A new factor this time is the Conservative Party but they've run a poor campaign and look to be falling short of the 5% threshold for seats.
Currently, it looks as though Peter Dunne for United First will hold his seat so add one to the National total but there's a way to go yet....
There is no reason to lump all constitutional change into a single deal where disagreement on the HoL kills all progress on everything else.
Which, of course, is entirely Miliband's objective
He doesn't care about ensuring the optimal advantage: he wants to entrench an unfair advantage for Labour.
(of course Cameron's proposal is about leveling the playing field. But, while this might create a relative advantage for the Tories, it at least has the merit of fairness)
With respect to all these debates about EV4EL and WLQ, Charles Moore in Telegraph has eloquently laid out why none of it is likely to happen. Certainly not before the GE and then who knows after that. This fits the way I see things at the moment. We have, IMHO, "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I wonder how many back bench MPs are right now deciding that they will not support further powers for Scotland unless the EV4EL is passed? I wonder also how the Lords might view that?
Making promises to Scotland whilst screwing over England is really not bright this close to a UK election. And of course it is entirely possible that the Lords could (and should) completely scupper 'The Vow' if they feel it is further eroding the democratic balance between the 4 nations.
As I understand it David Cameron has no choice but to offer EV4EL. Without that offer, a deal to extend the Scots more powers and money simply wouldn't go through parliament.
You are the one using dying children as ammunition in your political rants. Classy.
Some things shouldn't be profit making. Dying child as a profit stream? That's what's really classy....
You seem to be making the same mistake as so many people on left and right: you are more interested in ideology than outcome. It doesn't matter what the outcome is for the children, as long as your ideology is followed.
Not supporting making a profit out of dying children? That's my matter of principle. What's yours?
If the children get a better standard of care, and their families greater responsiveness and support, then who cares about whether someone makes a profit.
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.
Missed a lot of the discussions - has anyone yet answered the question of how you write the law to define an "English bill", without it being possible to amend it to a "UK bill" simply by adding a (potentially completely unrelated) clause which clearly applies to the whole of the UK?
Not a problem with devolved parliaments because their powers are clearly defined. The UK Parliament can vote on anything and link multiple issues together. Of course there is also the question of whether a Labour Govt could just write a bill reversing EV4EL. Would a Labour voter in England be more concerned about the West Lothian question, or whether the chances of Labour friendly policies being pursued being maximises. It is an interesting question whether EV4EL would pass in an English referendum, since a majority may well prefer the status ("anti Tory") quo.
I never worried at all about whether the people voting are Scottish or not. Unless you thought there was a real conflict of interest problem - which I don't see. Scottish MPs have constituents with the same problems as English MPs. There aren't that many of them. Best allow all MPs to vote on all matters - simple.
It is not a matter of whether they are Scottish or not. It is a question of whether they are answerable through elections to the people they are passing laws over. At the moment Scottish MPs are not and as such they have no democratic legitimacy to be voting on any issues that are devolved to Holyrood. .
Good morning. Can I say as an ex graphic designer that the term EV4EL looks to speakers of English too much like the word EVIL. As a logo or icon it will have subconscious and psychological drawbacks. It would be much better if a new combination of words or letters were found to express the concept.
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>
Stodge You can add the Labour and Green totals but not NZ First, they are basically the NZ UKIP could be kingmakers for either party, though looks like Key won't need them but could do deal with ACT and UF if needed to push him over line
As I understand it David Cameron has no choice but to offer EV4EL. Without that offer, a deal to extend the Scots more powers and money simply wouldn't go through parliament.
Couldn't Labour + Lib Dems + SNP + some Tories vote it through parliament?
Not sure Cameron would keep his job though in that case.
AS Johnstone Thanks for that, Labour MPs clearly helped by incumbency factor if that the case
Not even incumbency, they are gaining seats, Labour is currently on course to take Maungakiekie which it lost by 8% last time. The Labour leadership is very unpopular.
Although they are holding Hutt South with despite only being on 28% of party vote.
Conservative party have chucked in the towel, it's heading for an unprecedented single party National win
As I understand it David Cameron has no choice but to offer EV4EL. Without that offer, a deal to extend the Scots more powers and money simply wouldn't go through parliament.
Couldn't Labour + Lib Dems + SNP + some Tories vote it through parliament?
Not sure Cameron would keep his job though in that case.
The SNP support dealing with the WLQ. To their credit they have voluntarily enacted the solution for many years.
This is not a simple issue of removing the rights of non English MP's to vote on English only issues. England elects most MPs and it generates/spends most of the money. It is quite possible for English MP's to pass legislation that is detrimental (budget wise) to the rest of the UK. Westminster is a UK parliament and each MP is equal.
If England wants to have a devolved parliament representing English only issues, then set up a separate entity. Northern Ireland and Wales can also have more devolution. Westminster can be the federal parliament with fewer MP's.
This is not something to rush into. In my opinion, part of the problem is that the UK parliament does not represent votes cast. If in 2015 Lib Dems and UKIP win say 10% of the vote, with Lib Dems having say 40 MP's and UKIP only say 5, then this would not be acceptable to most people. FPTP is no longer fit for purpose and there should be another referendum on a form of proportional representation. ( AV was not a PR system)
David and NPxMP both raise excellent points as always.
However I do take exception to "politics just doesn't work like that in Britain or anywhere else. The question of e.g. whether to have free schools or privatise health delivery is seen as a matter of principle, not something you favour in rural Wales but oppose in urban Leicester" because I think this is close to flat-out wrong. I suspect this is because NP is unusually ideological* in his inclinations, a worldview which tends to raise the contrast bar on shades of grey and leave them looking more black and white.
The examples he raised basically concern autonomy or use of the markets versus more centrally or authority-controlled provision of public services. That certainly has scope for partisan disagreement but as other posters have pointed out, all the leading parties have operated along a continuous spectrum on these issues so compromise and negotiation are obviously plausible outcomes, even if not palatable to those with strong views on the issues. Those people often turn out to be back-benchers, because for whatver reason the front-bench business of actually getting on and implementing stuff seems either to be more attactive to pragmatic types, or has some sort of character-changing effects on ideologues.
* By which I mean, a Big Ideas man with a particular interest in overarching/underlying values and principles, as opposed to a pragmatist. Don't mean "ideological" to carry negative aspersions and I am somewhat baffled at the minimal self-awareness involved in the recent trend among politicos and columnists to attack rivals as "ideological" while they claim their own proposals to be "evidence-based". Which usually means their prejudices are merely reinforced by finding a study that agrees with them, and moreover study X says policy Y is supported by the evidence because it produces outcome Z - and whether Z is desirable, and to what extent, and whether some other metric may be more relevant or worthwhile, is usually a matter of values and principles.
As I understand it David Cameron has no choice but to offer EV4EL. Without that offer, a deal to extend the Scots more powers and money simply wouldn't go through parliament.
Couldn't Labour + Lib Dems + SNP + some Tories vote it through parliament?
Not sure Cameron would keep his job though in that case.
The SNP support dealing with the WLQ. To their credit they have voluntarily enacted the solution for many years.
Would have been better off with a yes vote. This English parliament etc will only lead to it anyway
I suppose my particular objection was to the "politics doesn't work like that in Britain or anywhere else" though, since as far as I can see, it does. At local authority level there are clear variations over issues like planning strategy or outsourcing of contracts (which cut along similar ideological faultlines to the examples raised) which reveal no party to be utterly homogeneous across the country, but rather that they tend to be responsive to local situations. If policies on school autonomy were set on a much more local basis, I'd expect to see more local variability (and local coalition compromises) on that issue too. If a policy is set at a national level, then clearly a party will only take one view on it (officially), and the variations in opinion that exist among its membership will not be manifested as clearly as if the issue were devolved to a more local level and local parties had more of a role in implementation. This would be in line with international experience - do either of the two main parties in the States have a single vision for education policy at a State level? Clearly not, since red states have not all ended up with near-identical education systems and nor have blue states.
There is stuff where you do need a pretty strong and consistent single line in a party, e.g. "should we go to war?" You'd want the Labour/Conservative leadership to set the line on this, rather than backroom negotiation between regional party groupings with different local opinions on the matter. If Welsh Labour head to an election campaign on an "Bring Back the Troops" slogan and Leicester Labour campaign on a "continue the war and support our allies until our job is done" basis then something's seriously wrong, to the point where it's not worth calling them the same party anymore. But that is why you still need a national level of government to take national decisions, and national parties that formulate a national policy. Once an issue is devolved, we expect a party to maintain a broad direction of travel on that policy nationwide, but there's no reason for zero variation between devolved sub-units either. Responsiveness to local variation is part of the point of devolution.
As I understand it David Cameron has no choice but to offer EV4EL. Without that offer, a deal to extend the Scots more powers and money simply wouldn't go through parliament.
Couldn't Labour + Lib Dems + SNP + some Tories vote it through parliament?
Not sure Cameron would keep his job though in that case.
The SNP support dealing with the WLQ. To their credit they have voluntarily enacted the solution for many years.
Would have been better off with a yes vote. This English parliament etc will only lead to it anyway
I was hoping for a Yes vote but since that was not to be we have to work with what we have and get the changes done ourselves rather than relying on the Scots.
There is no reason to lump all constitutional change into a single deal where disagreement on the HoL kills all progress on everything else.
Which, of course, is entirely Miliband's objective
He doesn't care about ensuring the optimal advantage: he wants to entrench an unfair advantage for Labour.
(of course Cameron's proposal is about leveling the playing field. But, while this might create a relative advantage for the Tories, it at least has the merit of fairness)
It's everybody's objective. The LibLabServatives got scared by a rogue YouGov and promised devomax. But none of them actually support devomax. So Cameron attached the EVfEL poison pill to make Labour oppose it, and Labour will put in some other poison pill to the resulting stew that the Tories won't want to swallow, and the whole thing ends up on the compost heap.
Comments
Its not direct corruption of individuals. Its not criminal. Its soft influence. And why is the profit motive bad in healthcare where the "free at the point of use" patient has zero choice but to use that provider? Do I have to spell it out?
*Actually a lot of people directly accused Labour of taking bungs. Its just that when the same thing happens with the Tories the donations are entirely coincidental and and questions arw apparently libellous.....
And since the English genie is out of the bottle the only sustainable long term answer involves an English Government and Parliament. Many of the current 'UK' minstries would simply become English ones over which the UK government and parliament had no say - for all the devolved matters.
The UK government and parliament would govern defence, foreign, AND SPENDING OVERALL. This is crucial. I think the devolved country governments should receive a federal block grant from the UK and be free to tax and spend on top of that as they see fit - BUT NOT TO BORROW. If the countries can borrow that implies the UK backstops them. Scotland could run a loony lefty spend, spend spend agenda and run up debts it can't service, for example. So as much tax and spend as each country wants but borrowing overall to be controlled at the UK level by No.11.
I've never been so insulted.
Why is the Tory party giving the same deal to England, Scotland and Wales seen as favoring the English? It is favoring each of the 4 (NI as well) equally. It is a pro Welsh, Irish. English and Scottish policy.
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.
Did Labour not hand the logistics contract to TNT DHL? Maybe sven could clarify...?
:google-is-your-friend:
http://www.supplychain.nhs.uk/suppliers/key-facts/
Without electoral reform, what is absolutely clear is that EV4EL is not a mechanism that will lead to English voters getting what they voted for or what they would like to see.
I'm going to say that it is a dreadful piece of pastiche art that makes its subject look ridiculous. And you can't stop me :-)
Mr. Patrick, an eminently sensible post.
Mr. Palmer, I don't care if there's gridlock (given how stupid new laws can be it may be an actively good thing). I care about England getting a fair deal.
Its not a Labour or Tory partisan issue. Private healthcare have used lobbying and donations to promote their agenda with the decision makers and this is where we end up. That the Labour party managed to promote such appalling right wing policies is part of the reason we became unpopular. However, I do have to ask Foxinsox if supporting the LibDems - voting through a privatisation agenda worse than ours was - is the obvious response to leaving Labour for the same policy? Isn't this the problem with politics now - all 3 parties have basically the same policies on too many things?
Ever wonder how we managed to coalesce all these aryies to apply an agenda of a massive private health industry looking for profits? Again, it's not cash in envelopes or illegality, but it is corruption - of ideas - of most politicians. Buying influence indirectly over time is legal. But depressing. How long until we end up like America where politicians rely on donations and need them ever higher?
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
More devolution to a more local level in England. I have friends in Northern England who are keen on this. I would have Manchester and Birmingham as the 2 capitals with a London assembly too.
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?
I don't buy the argument that EV4EL would make Scots contemplating voting Conservative turn against the party, providing that it was tied to delivering DevoMax, and delivering it before the election. That fact alone should assure Scots of the Tories treating Scotland with the respect Labour hasn't. Indeed, if Labour and the Lib Dems combined to block the legislation, I can't see it being anything other than a win-win in partisan terms, as well as the rather more important question of equity.
Of course you seek to project these attitudes onto your opponents.
But still...
Scotland - MPs elected to Westminster, a separate parliament and MSPs for devolved issues
Wales - MPs elected to Westminster, a separate assembly and AMs for devolved issues
Northern Ireland - MPs in Westminster, a separate assembly, MLA for devolved issues
England as proposed - MPs in Westminster, a committee for everything as part of Westminster
If the Tories want to propagate English equality and parity it would propose an English parliament. Instead Garage has proposed that, and the Tories have proposed a bear trap for Labour that whilst still saving legislative affairs in England as inferior to the other nations, it might just give them a veto when they lose the 2015 election which might be enough to save Cameron's job.
The idea that we can get those 'other ways forward' quickly is also ridiculous. HoL reform is a classic example.
"Scottish No Vote Saves Cameron's Dodgy Bacon".Paddy McGuffin.
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-cc72-Scottish-No-vote-saves-Camerons-dodgy-bacon#.VB08wvldVSg
Salmond's gamble in enfranchising wee kids months from finishing their education and excluding Scots in England (and elsewhere) might have paid off, likewise framing the question for a date of his choosing. However, Salmond's reputation as a political titan is overplayed, if his grasp of economics was so sound, why did he sound so vacuous over currency union, EU membership, debt and growth? His lack of preparedness for difficult questions on finances screwed the SNP. It isn't as if he had no time to sort out his positions. Cameron is a lucky general, but enemies didn't exploit his mistakes.
But you are right, in the meantime EV4EL is not a huge problem in principle. The devil will be in the detail, which is why it has not happened up until now. Labour ducked it, of course (even though it would have made no practical difference to its ability to pass legislation given its majority of English MPs for the whole time it was in power). But the coalition has also been in charge now for over four years and it has done nothing about it.
For example, if the Speaker decides what is English-only legislation, who gets to choose the Speaker?
Not a problem with devolved parliaments because their powers are clearly defined. The UK Parliament can vote on anything and link multiple issues together. Of course there is also the question of whether a Labour Govt could just write a bill reversing EV4EL. Would a Labour voter in England be more concerned about the West Lothian question, or whether the chances of Labour friendly policies being pursued being maximises. It is an interesting question whether EV4EL would pass in an English referendum, since a majority may well prefer the status ("anti Tory") quo.
Forget about the monstrosities of an English Parliament or the ghastly complexities of EV4ELs, simply reduce the number of Scottish MPs from 59 to, say, a maximum of 20. There is a case too - to a lesser extent - for doing the same for Wales and Northern Ireland (remember Callaghan's Labour Government in 1978 increased Ulster's representation, precisely because of Direct Rule!)
And, that's it. Problem solved.
'The Scots vote to stay in the union and the response is to make their 59 MPs second class ones. Eh?'
But 533 second class English MP's is fine.
The greater absurdity is the bcurrent situation where not only can Scottish MPs not vote on devolved matters they CAN and DO vote on purely English matters which have no effect on their own constituents and are therefore voting without any responsibility for their actions.
When we try to correct this anomaly Mr Smithson has the nerve to suggest this is making Scottish MPs second class.
Currently Scottish MPs have practically nothing to do - virtually all the matters that English MPs might discuss at their constituency clinics are covered by their MSPs. One shining example might be if they have a complaint about their health service.
Why are you not outraged by the North West not getting a "fair deal" over HS2?
Labour vote has collapsed from it's all time low in 2011
I think that Regional govt is not something that is being massively clamoured for in England but if it is then lets have a proper think about it. In any event its nothing to do with the WLQ its about local govt.
All viewpoints, unless inciting violence, have a place in any political discourse, no matter how unpleasant. To ban them simply plays to their persecution complex and persuades the persuadable that they have a point and are being 'kept quiet' to suppress the 'truth'.
If it is wrong to make a profit out of providing essential health care should you not be complaining about all the people and companies that currently do within the public NHS system? Medical equipment manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, the people that make ambulances, the doctors, nurses, and all other staff they all make money out of providing care to ill people. Is that wrong? Should all those companies be nationalised and the staff conscripted and made to work for just their bed and board?
If National win that will be a boost for Cameron, as Key is arguably the world leader he is closest to philosophically, centre right but pro gay marriage and accepting of climate change, and the 2 are close friends apparently and regularly text each other
http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/israel-dagg-jonah-lomu-could-in-trouble-over-election-tweets-6086965
So far National has 49%, Labour 24%, Greens 10%, NZ First (NZ UKIP) 9%, Conservatives 4%, Internet Mana 1.4%, Maori 1.3%
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-29268823
"New Zealand's proportional representation electoral system means a coalition government is more likely than any one party winning a majority."
The first is how do we deal with EVFEL. The second is what English powers should be devolved and to what level of local government.
Starting with West Lothian question.First of all a decision is required on what will be the new list of powers devolved to Scotland.In principle these same powers should then be devolved to an England only body This can be achieved by simply ensuring that only English MP,s at Westminster vote on English matters.De facto this is an English parliament (at no extra cost,) so we might as well call it one.Similar bodies with the same powers would be set up for Wales and NI if they want.Since there is already a timetable for the process I do'n't see why its not possible to do the rest of the UK before the May 2015 GE .
Now on to the second question English devolution.Assuming an English parliament is in place it would then be up to English MP,s post the GE to decide what powers they want to delegate and to which part of local government.My view is that the English voter swill not be happy with any changes that increase cost or add extra layers of bureaucracy
I think what is required is first a thorough review. of existing local government.Currently we have a mixture of counties,distict and unitary authorities.I would favour a move to unitary authorities with the same powers being vested in this one level of government.Clearly this process of local devolution is,since it involves multiple existing structures,is going to take time.
Finally we have the issue of how to handle UK non "domestic" areas of power-defense,foreign affairs,finnacial stability,UK infrastructure,.As an interim these matters would be voted on by existing Westminster MP's.
My opposition to the opposition to privatisation is this: you are prepared to have a less effective system just because you oppose private enterprise, in healthcare this means you are prepared to kill people for your "principles".
I work with people with long term health conditions, and the inaction of the NHS is breathtaking, it certainly does not seem to have the aim of returning people to health as quickly as possible so they can return to work and support themselves.
Under MMP with redistribution of failed parties, National look like they could win an outright majority in a system designed to avoid such a result.
interesting Labour are running well ahead in the electorate votes compared to the party vote. Labour MPs more popular than the Labour party.
PR
House of Lords reform
Tories (booo)
Complexity
Racism
HS2
The spinning of the planet earth
And there's the fact that North Sea oil is running out and by the time the SNP are back in power, there'll be a lot less of it left. And North Sea oil is what Scottish independence has always been about.
Anyone fancy a bet?
Conservatives a getting 20 point start in Clacton...EVEN MONEY
It's almost like you're forgetting, that with less thane one week to go, there was an ICM poll that had Yes ahead by 8%, which by your own definition, is well outside the margin of error.
http://tvnz.co.nz/vote-2014/results
With respect to all these debates about EV4EL and WLQ, Charles Moore in Telegraph has eloquently laid out why none of it is likely to happen. Certainly not before the GE and then who knows after that. This fits the way I see things at the moment. We have, IMHO, "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11109216/Scottish-referendum-things-might-well-be-the-same-again.html
As for London and NI, London has vastly fewer devolved powers and while NI is a better example (and one which to some extent bears out the first point about the impact in practice), the Assembly there is also a less powerful thing than Holyrood. It's natural that the focus is on the greatest degree of disparity but that doesn't mean that lesser ones can't be addressed if reform is to happen anyway.
One or two comments on events in New Zealand this morning. It's actually a lot closer than the basic numbers might suggest showing National with a huge lead. As is often the case with a dominant party, the others start coalescing as a means to forcing change.
Since the downfall of Helen Clark's Labour Government, the Labour Party has struggled to make an impact and Key has dominated but there's just a hint that might be changing.
With the impact of MMP, National will probably win 57-59 seats in the 121-seat chamber but need the help of ACT and United First (very small parties but their respective leaders have a seat so that helps) and the tacit support of Maori Party they have a wafer-thin majority.
On the other side, Labour, the Greens and New Zealand First under Winston Peters combine to around 45% of the vote but that might also deliver 55-57 seats for their bloc so it comes down to a few electorates (constituencies) and the strength of the list vote. A new factor this time is the Conservative Party but they've run a poor campaign and look to be falling short of the 5% threshold for seats.
Currently, it looks as though Peter Dunne for United First will hold his seat so add one to the National total but there's a way to go yet....
He doesn't care about ensuring the optimal advantage: he wants to entrench an unfair advantage for Labour.
(of course Cameron's proposal is about leveling the playing field. But, while this might create a relative advantage for the Tories, it at least has the merit of fairness)
Making promises to Scotland whilst screwing over England is really not bright this close to a UK election. And of course it is entirely possible that the Lords could (and should) completely scupper 'The Vow' if they feel it is further eroding the democratic balance between the 4 nations.
That's *my* matter of principle.
Can I say as an ex graphic designer that the term EV4EL looks to speakers of English too much like the word EVIL. As a logo or icon it will have subconscious and psychological drawbacks.
It would be much better if a new combination of words or letters were found to express the concept.
Not sure Cameron would keep his job though in that case.
All of them, including the labour ones in constituencies with majorities under 10,000.
Although they are holding Hutt South with despite only being on 28% of party vote.
Conservative party have chucked in the towel, it's heading for an unprecedented single party National win
Fantasy
If England wants to have a devolved parliament representing English only issues, then set up a separate entity. Northern Ireland and Wales can also have more devolution. Westminster can be the federal parliament with fewer MP's.
This is not something to rush into. In my opinion, part of the problem is that the UK parliament does not represent votes cast. If in 2015 Lib Dems and UKIP win say 10% of the vote, with Lib Dems having say 40 MP's and UKIP only say 5, then this would not be acceptable to most people. FPTP is no longer fit for purpose and there should be another referendum on a form of proportional representation. ( AV was not a PR system)
However I do take exception to "politics just doesn't work like that in Britain or anywhere else. The question of e.g. whether to have free schools or privatise health delivery is seen as a matter of principle, not something you favour in rural Wales but oppose in urban Leicester" because I think this is close to flat-out wrong. I suspect this is because NP is unusually ideological* in his inclinations, a worldview which tends to raise the contrast bar on shades of grey and leave them looking more black and white.
The examples he raised basically concern autonomy or use of the markets versus more centrally or authority-controlled provision of public services. That certainly has scope for partisan disagreement but as other posters have pointed out, all the leading parties have operated along a continuous spectrum on these issues so compromise and negotiation are obviously plausible outcomes, even if not palatable to those with strong views on the issues. Those people often turn out to be back-benchers, because for whatver reason the front-bench business of actually getting on and implementing stuff seems either to be more attactive to pragmatic types, or has some sort of character-changing effects on ideologues.
* By which I mean, a Big Ideas man with a particular interest in overarching/underlying values and principles, as opposed to a pragmatist. Don't mean "ideological" to carry negative aspersions and I am somewhat baffled at the minimal self-awareness involved in the recent trend among politicos and columnists to attack rivals as "ideological" while they claim their own proposals to be "evidence-based". Which usually means their prejudices are merely reinforced by finding a study that agrees with them, and moreover study X says policy Y is supported by the evidence because it produces outcome Z - and whether Z is desirable, and to what extent, and whether some other metric may be more relevant or worthwhile, is usually a matter of values and principles.
Absolutely and that's the key point. The Scots don;t mind England having its own parliament. They are getting home rule and more money, after all.
The only people in the way of a deal that suits England and Scotland are the labour party. They are the deal blockers.
There is stuff where you do need a pretty strong and consistent single line in a party, e.g. "should we go to war?" You'd want the Labour/Conservative leadership to set the line on this, rather than backroom negotiation between regional party groupings with different local opinions on the matter. If Welsh Labour head to an election campaign on an "Bring Back the Troops" slogan and Leicester Labour campaign on a "continue the war and support our allies until our job is done" basis then something's seriously wrong, to the point where it's not worth calling them the same party anymore. But that is why you still need a national level of government to take national decisions, and national parties that formulate a national policy. Once an issue is devolved, we expect a party to maintain a broad direction of travel on that policy nationwide, but there's no reason for zero variation between devolved sub-units either. Responsiveness to local variation is part of the point of devolution.
But its OK to immediately promise the Scots home rule and money on the back of a fag packet in a desperate attempt to keep the union intact, right?