politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Getting EVEL through will be a tough fight for the Tories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Getting EVEL through will be a tough fight for the Tories
A significant moment on this historic day in the commons was a point of order by Alex Salmond about the Tory plans to introduce EVEL (English Votes for English Laws) by changing the House’s standing orders.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://bit.ly/1LKhM0W
Cracks appearing in team Burnham
Word reaches Uncut that all is not well in the Burnham camp. Despite being the bookies’ favourite, worries about Andy Burnham’s strategy and performance have started to bubble to the surface among his supporters.
Doubts are being raised about what has been dubbed the ‘inevitability strategy’.
Immediately following the general election defeat, Andy Burnham’s campaign mobilised, rolling out endorsements from across the PLP to establish him as the runaway favourite, suck away nominations from potential rivals and make his victory seem assured.
http://bit.ly/1dyrB71
I'm not some rabid English nationalist - although some dispute the fact of our existence, I'm one of those people who is British first and English second - and I've not even opposed automatically to asymmetrical constitutional arrangements if that seems the best and fairest solution, but where asymmetry already exists and is perceived as unfair or unreasonable, it seems reasonable to take steps to address that, and I think the rather hysterical oppositional interpretations of what appears to have been proposed undermines any relevant points that might be being made, as when I see that level of, at first glance, overreaction, relevant points get lost for me.
As for taking deep root, I think they would argue that their whole purpose does not require them staying any longer in the HoC than necessary
Yes
Extraordinary
New new labour is going to be completely different.
Plan for a quick campaign but prepare for a long one.
Nouveau Labour.
We're all Europeans now.
“Andy is being defined as the left-wing choice, he needs to balance out his support. Idiots on Twitter like Eoin Clarke aren’t helping.”
Eoin Clarke blocked both Keiran Pedley and I on twitter for pointing out to him he was posting misleading polling figures, and ramping up sub samples
Only allowing MPs from some constituencies to vote on some Bills, or at some stage on some Bills, does then create a divide in the House between different types of MP, and this has a negative impact, in my view, particularly on the issue of government formation, since it is entirely possible that the House could have a majority of MPs in support of one potential Prime Minister, but a majority of English MPs in support of someone else. If Scottish MPs cannot vote in all divisions then they are less valuable as potential supporters of a PM. This is toxic.
If England is not happy with legislation on its NHS and Education system being debated on in the UK Parliament then it should create its own Parliament, or devolve this power to other appropriate bodies (provinces, city-regions, counties, whatever).
The House of Commons is a legislative body for the UK as a whole, and if you force it to double-up as an English-only Parliament some of the time by excluding the Scottish MPs, then I think that is one step on the road to it becoming an English-only Parliament all of the time.
As for the SNP, surely its in their interests to have two classes of MPs. Its getting what they want, the Scots writing Scottish laws and the English writing English laws. If we don't get EVEL, we should revoke devolution.
You obviously chose your first sentence in faux modesty: Being of the Left 'true', liberal equality - with the thought of the rule-of-law and equal-representation to the fore - must be despicable to one that havs long-flown-the-cockoos-nest!
:shame-you-used-to-be-bright: *
* May have confused you with a former member of this parish, a certain kle3 . Apologies to the letter if I am mistaken....
MPs from the South West can vote on rail projects that affect their region or just the Midlands. Midlands MPs can vote on rail projects that affect their region or just the South West. The situation is identical. Whether this project affects you directly or not, the next one may - its swings and roundabouts.
Scottish MPs can't vote on projects that affect their own region but can for England. English MPs can vote on projects that affect their own region but can't for Scotland. The situation is not the same and the Scottish MPs NEVER vote on their own devolved issues.
Its morally indefensible. The whole purpose of democracy is that you take actions and are then held to account by your electorate - who is holding the Scottish MPs to account when they write English only laws that by law they can't write their own.
Two classes of MPs were created two decades ago nearly when devolution occurred. Restoring a situation were MPs only vote on issues that could affect their constituents (whether this particular one does or not is moot) would restore one class of MP. The Scottish MPs have chosen to devolve their responsibilities to Holyrood.
Well after 9.30pm, and the attention-seeking nationalists are still in gang mentality in the commons. Don't they have second homes to go to?
Whether this solution to the perceived problem is good or not, and I take your point about the dangers of the UK parliament doubling up as an English parliament as a sort of stepping stone, I just cannot see how we don't already have a clear, regionally focused (rather than issue focused) divide in our MPs, so the question is not 'Does this create two classes of MPs' because to my mind it seems we already have two, but 'Does this make the classes even more distinct in a bad way, rather than equalising the classes?'
But if the SNP continue with their schooboy antics like today then they can easily be outvoted. If the SNP want to be listened to, then they would be well advised to develop some manners.
The Stop the War Coalition have come to FIFA's defence, because American went for FIFA because of FIFA's anti Israel policy
http://bit.ly/1cjGAjz
Mr de Gregorio rejects the idea that a new president is the simple solution to Fifa's problems:
"You have a structural problem where you have the president elected by one body - namely the congress - and you have his ministers, like his government. elected by another body - namely by six different confederations.
"So basically his government is a group of people representing the interests of their own confederation so you tell me now how a president has to deal with that?
Classic nonsense. If something is not going to be the solution to all problems, obviously it should not even be attempted as a partial solution or step in the right direction.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-32884783
He also talks about the reform process being hard and hurting - it really shouldn't hurt if it's to clean up a fetid mess of an organisation, one should be eager and happy about clearing the filth, putting better structures in place, even if it is hard. Indeed, improving things (which given he says the reforms were necessary he presumably thinks they were) should feel satisfying and invigorating I'd have thought.
But I accept my low opinion of the scum of Fifa may taint my view of even innocuous comments they make.
@PJDunleavy
When will Brexit referendum be? Rumour sweeping Commons is 1 massive May 2016 vote - Brexit - Scotland -Wales - London - Police Commisioners
Why should that stop us from recognising the fact that Scotland decided to devolve their powers over health, education etc to Holyrood so their Westminster MPs are neither needed nor are democratically accountable to vote over health, education etc - that is the result of devolution.
There are three equally valid solutions that I see for the Scots.
1: Abolish devolution, go to a single union with equal classes of MPs.
2: Keep devolution with English Votes for English Laws and Scottish Votes for Scottish Laws.
3: Go independent.
Trying to have your cake and eat it too with exclusively Scottish Votes for Scottish Laws AND Scottish Votes for English Laws is simply indefensible.
Completely barking
I may be wrong, and there might be other national legislative bodies that exclude some of their members from some of their votes, in a way that is generally accepted as fair and reasonable.
This could also end up being one of those classic British fudges that really doesn't make any particular sense, but works because everyone involved prefers it to the alternatives - which has pretty much been my defence of the status quo for many years. I just don't see it.
Think of the consequence for the next general election. The Labour and Conservative manifestos will both have policies for the English NHS, Education system, transport, etc, and with the knowledge of EVEL the media will be all over the question of what happens if the Conservatives lose their UK majority, but retain a majority in England. It would make the campaigning in the election campaign just past around the potential influence of the SNP look tame in comparison. It would be the most effective campaign for Scottish Independence that the SNP could ever hope to devise.
Labour's constitutional convention idea was actually not a terrible one to that end I felt, though they had already come up with their plans for many of the issues (A Senate of the People and the Regions or whatever it was to be called), so why they were going to both I don't know.
If the Conservatives maintain a majority in England then they should be the ones running the NHS, Education etc - call the Conservative leader the First Minister of England. Works for the other nations.
Essentially, in my view, Westminster is trying to function as a combined UK and English Parliament, likewise the Government in London. Complete mess resolvable only by clear separation of the UK and English legislatures/executives.
Even the members of team Burnham most eager to take on Liz Kendall concede that if the race descends into a scrap between the two, Yvette Cooper could come through the middle and win.
Just topped up on Yvette at 8.0 and 7.8. Ridiculous odds.
Or, Saxony, Bavaria.........
Victoria, NSW........
Alberta, Ontario..........
There is, however, a serious constitutional problem about what the Conservatives are suggesting. Merely because an Act of Parliament extends only to England and Wales does not mean that the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence to make equivalent provision in Scotland. Whether the subject matter of legislation is reserved or devolved in Scotland (which is the only logical basis to decide whether Scottish MPs will have a vote in the House of Commons under the proposed standing orders) is a question of statutory construction of the Scotland Act 1998. Constitutionally, that is emphatically a matter for the courts, not the House of Commons.
Every voter should have a representative who represents them on an issue. For education the Scottish voters representative is in Holyrood, while for defence their representative is in Westminster. For both the English are represented (as they have been for hundreds of years) in Westminster. If power is devolved away from Westminster for a region then that regions MPs should be non-participants in anything devolved.
Its really not that complicated.
Those examples are all ones of symmetrical devolution/federalism. Victoria can't vote on NSW issues where NSW can vote on Bavarian ones. So this is not like the Scotland-England situation at all.
Yes, of course MPs have always had votes on issues which don't directly affect their constituents, but (before devolution) those were symmetrical. The point now is that Scottish VOTERS, through their MPs and MSPs, get two votes on the same issue: once on the NHS in Scotland, and again on the NHS in England. How in the name of heaven can that conceivably be justified?
Of course, you are right when you say that " If Scottish MPs cannot vote in all divisions then they are less valuable as potential supporters of a PM". Yes, and quite right too. Scottish voters have already chosen a First Minister, with very substantial powers. Why in the name of heaven should they also get a second bite at the cherry, by having the same influence in choosing who will run England as an English voter gets?
We are an extremely underrepresented country anyway.
Though if that was the answer, then it should have been done with an English Parliament at the same time as Scottish devolution. Why wasn't it?
You don't see a situation where New York representatives and senators vote for Texan laws but can't vote on their own.
However, given the shift in the odds, I've gone more heavily into Yvette. Odds of nearly 7/1 are just absurd.
Winchester is the heart of England. Why proffer our history and law to anyone else...?
Ed won because his campaign worked very hard on the second vote !
The alternative sustainable plan is obvious - an English Parliament.
All MPs are equal in law.
This convention bullshit has to go.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/politics/rick-santorum-republican-2016-presidential-race.html?_r=0
Besides any law can be changed and we have a majority to change it. If Alex Salmond wants to speak about education there's a forum for him to do it in and it isn't Westminster.
English-law was initiated by the House of Wessex; England united by said House; and formalised by the Angevines: To what do we owe York (save the Roman Church)...?
But Jeb Bush is spinning his wheels, the Iowa and N.Hampshire focus groups really don't like him, they even think he's unelectable :
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/21/bloombergs_iowa_republican_focus_group_on_jeb_bush_it_goes_right_back_to_his_name_if_hes_electable.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2015-03-19/gop-primary-voters-laugh-at-notion-of-bush-as-frontrunner
On the numbers point, if we did have an English parliament then the number of UK MPs should be cut roughly in half.