English MP's to Vote on English Laws.

[penfold_99]

Given the recent discussions and summit (BBC News - David Cameron hosts Tory MPs for 'English votes' summit) about looking into devolution in England, I thought it best to start a dedicated thread.

 

Do folks here want devolution for england?

 

If we did, it would be good to leave westminster as the home of the UK government and setup a english parliament in another city like Manchester and before someone shouts second/third homes, these wouldn't be required as the MP could just use HS2.

[localzuk]

I want devolution to more than just England - I want England to be split into regional governments. Give us all a bit more direct access to our democracy.

 

Certain things would stay as central government (highways/main rail routes/major crimes/military etc...), but most decisions should be down to each region (with certain rules to comply with overall).

 

The entire structure needs changing - MPs would become representatives of their area within their regional government. Then each region would have a handful of representatives to a new UK government. They wouldn't share the role of English MP/UK MP, much like MEPs aren't MPs and in the USA Congressmen aren't state representatives.

[SovietRussia]

Well at least the changes won't be unconstitutional because and I quote 'the Parliament knows no such word' - this is why we have no judicial review on passed legislation xD

 

I think there should be more devolution to more parts of the UK but that in turn ends up being a federalised structure.

[spacebar]

Cameron should of never promised it in the first place.

 

If Scotland wanted to go independent they should of had the choice to do so without the English offering this or that.

 

They will go independent in the end, what ever happens in terms of devolution is just a pre-independence action. It might take another 20 years or so but it will occur.

[penfold_99]

I want devolution to more than just England - I want England to be split into regional governments. Give us all a bit more direct access to our democracy.

 

How could this work in the other home nations? I can understand the need for the england due to size but would it work else where?

 

Certain things would stay as central government (highways/main rail routes/major crimes/military etc...), but most decisions should be down to each region (with certain rules to comply with overall).

 

Where would taxation be levied? Per country and all then pay into the UK pot like we do with europe?

 

 

The entire structure needs changing - MPs would become representatives of their area within their regional government. Then each region would have a handful of representatives to a new UK government. They wouldn't share the role of English MP/UK MP, much like MEPs aren't MPs and in the USA Congressmen aren't state representatives.

 

How would the uk prime minister be chosen? Election based on the US presidential elections?

[tmcd35]

As a general principle I believe in devolution of power to the lowest possible level. In practice, how that is to be achieved I don't know. I'm not sure new tears of government, regional assemblies, are necessarily needed. Individual, Household, Parish, Borough/District, City/County, National, UK, EU, UN. I see it more that the right decisions need making at the right level, not all at central government, and England needs something that mirrors the Welsh, NI, Scottish Parlaments/Assemblies. Even if it is restricting votes in the existing parliament to existing English MP's on purely England only matters.

[spacebar]

Don't they have a system in Spain which is similar to what some want.

 

Corruption is a big issue is these systems as so many people are involved in things.

[penfold_99]

Well at least the changes won't be unconstitutional because and I quote 'the Parliament knows no such word' - this is why we have no judicial review on passed legislation xD

 

We do in a form, the queen/the crown. She has to review bills and sign them in law.

[penfold_99]

Cameron should of never promised it in the first place.

 

I think he was trying to be seen as being fair to english people, but in reality its a way for the tories to lock up the english vote.

[Dos_Box]

The problem I have with English regional devolution is that not all regions are equal. In the past 30 years the money has settled in only a couple of regions (mainly in the south) leavign many areas such as the North Westm South West and North East a lot poorer than they used to be.

If regions were to be allowed to set and raise taxes as per the US states then most would start off on an unequal footing.

[unixman_again]

The Australian model would be good.

• Federal , fully elected two houses - handles policies at the national level (eg foreign affairs, trade, agriculture, defence, employment, treasury, immigration, etc.) Compulsory voting.
  
• State, fully elected two houses - handles polices at the state level (police, education, sport, transport, utilities, etc.) Compulsory voting.
  
• Local, fully elected council, no political parties. Optional voting open to residents who own property in the area. Local infrastructure (libraries, bins, etc.)
  

Income tax and GST is collected at the Federal level. There are some state taxes such as vehicle registration and local taxes (rates, business rates).

Edited September 22, 2014 by unixman_again

[tommej]

I thought Cameron loved the union now he's all for dividing it into its constituent parts

[tmcd35]

Not sure I like the idea of compulsory voting. Seems like a poor solution to the issue of a disenfranchised electorate.

 

[*]Federal , fully elected two houses - handles policies at the national level (eg foreign affairs, trade, agriculture, defence, employment, treasury, immigration, etc.)

Does employment or agriculture need to be decided on at a UK wide level? Not even sure if it needs to be at State level...

 

On the other hand, defence could be handled at an EU level <*ducks for cover*>

 

[*]State, fully elected two houses - handles polices at the state level (police, education, sport, transport, utilities, etc.)

 

I'm sure there's aspects of all of these that need unified national thinking - but how much can/should the County/City councils be empowered to decide on these issues more locally?

Edited September 22, 2014 by tmcd35

[Alkaline]

Every part of the UK elects an MP, and this MP goes to parliament. It is not run by people just from one place in the UK.

 

Trouble with today is that many think they deserve something from the government. Get up off your arse and sort yourself out. Labour party polices of give give give are the cause.

 

It will all end in bloodshed and then we will realise we (the majority of the UK population) had never had it so good.

[witch]

These are all ideas for the future, and worth considering (and @Trapper, do you really think all southerners are posh and/or rich? There is a lot of poverty in the rural areas and many areas south of Watford Gap are struggling, and a long way from London)

 

For now - yes, I want English laws to be voted on by English MPs. It is simple - English MPs cannot vote in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies -so give England an assembly on the same basis as a starting point.

I know that as a left-winger this will make England more Tory as many Labour MPs are in Scotland, but that is just something I will have to live with for now

[SpuffMonkey]

Yes - but an English only assembly would make London and the south east far too dominant (even more so!) - the large cities did a fair job until they were emasculated in the 1980s - far from perfect - but then, what isn't? It seems absurd to me that planning applications in a local area can be overruled on a whim by a Govt minister, or local school set ups or whatever - the constant centralisation of power goes a long way to disenfranchising us - all decisions seem so remote.

 

When you actually stop to consider how an "English votes for English laws" system would work - it becomes hideously complicated without a radical rethink of the structure of governance and a change to a more federal system - though plenty of other countries seem to manage on a federal basis without chaos...

[elsiegee40]

I live in the hated South East; you can't get much further that way than Kent. I live in a county of huge contrasts. The West where I live is relatively wealthy with lots of London commuters, but if you don't have the wherewithal to get to grammar schol and the city then your employment prospects are tough. The North and East of Kent suffer from huge deptivation as bad as any up North thanks to the death of the coal mining and quarrying industries... and the ports. Awful employment figures with a higher cost of living. And, trying not to sound like UKIP, the first stop for immigrants to the UK; Kent has to pay for most of the costs of dealing with illegal ones and there is no central money to pay for it. Here we fear being further dominated by London. The needy in this county don't get what they need because the people of Kent are perceived as wealthy.

 

Money isn't just down south... Cheshire, for example, has a large wealthy population too and bits that are probably every bit as bad as Ebbsfleet, Sheppey and Dover in Kent.

 

In my own mind, it has been unfair for a long time that parts of the UK that have their own governments can vote on affairs that only affect England.

 

Maybe we are heading for a USA model? One where the four home nations have their own goverments like the US states and only the national issues are dealt with in the Houses of Parliament. It won't happen I suspect as the MPs won't want to lose power... turkeys voting for Christmas.

[localzuk]

The USA gets around a single state dominating the legislature by having 2 elected houses - one which is proportional to population, and one which has fixed membership - 2 members per state.

 

Problem is, the current parties have no reason to change things so significantly - they currently hold all the power and, well, as you know "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

 

If they were there to truly represent the people that elected them, there'd be a heck of a lot more rebellion during votes in parliament. I took a look at my MPs voting record. He has rebelled against party lines about 1.5% of the time total. That's the lot. He votes on things that don't have any bearing on us over here (HS2) but votes against things that would significantly help his constituents.

 

The entire system as it stands appears to be broken and those running it will not admit that.

[witch]

When you actually stop to consider how an "English votes for English laws" system would work - it becomes hideously complicated without a radical rethink of the structure of governance and a change to a more federal system - though plenty of other countries seem to manage on a federal basis without chaos...

Why? It seemed to work relatively simply when they formed the Welsh, Northern Irish and Scots Assemblies. I'm not sure why it would make London and the South East more dominant other than the Labour MPs in Scotland issue - but that is just incidental to the fundamental unfairness of my MP not being able to vote on a Scottish law but a Scottish MP can vote on a law that does not apply to his constituency.

You are making the classic mistake, as @elsiegee40 says, of thinking that the rest of the country IS London and the South East.

[tmcd35]

 

Problem is, the current parties have no reason to change things so significantly - they currently hold all the power and, well, as you know "absolute power corrupts absolutely".

 

...

 

The entire system as it stands appears to be broken and those running it will not admit that.

 

 

 

It doesn't help when the people actively vote against change when it is offered. This parliament is bookended by a referendum on alternative voting and a referendum on Scottish independence. What a great footnote in history for democracy

[witch]

Yeah, but the AV they chose was ridiculously complicated and very hard to explain - IMHO the Tories told the Lib Dems that they could have their referendum on AV but it had to be that one - knowing that people wouldn't get it.

[localzuk]

Indeed. I voted for AV, but it wasn't the system that people actually wanted - no-one was given the option to actually choose a good option. Why would the Tories allow a vote that would have significantly damaged their future prospects? Its a lot like the constituency boundaries - the people in power only want to change them if doing so would improve their prospects in the next election. If they'd harm them, they vote against.

[SpuffMonkey]

Why? It seemed to work relatively simply when they formed the Welsh, Northern Irish and Scots Assemblies. I'm not sure why it would make London and the South East more dominant other than the Labour MPs in Scotland issue - but that is just incidental to the fundamental unfairness of my MP not being able to vote on a Scottish law but a Scottish MP can vote on a law that does not apply to his constituency.

You are making the classic mistake, as @elsiegee40 says, of thinking that the rest of the country IS London and the South East.

 

Well - the difference as far as I see it is that while Scotland, NI and Wales got their own assemblies with defined powers and spheres of influence, that is not proposed (by the Tories) for England - so there is no clear division of what is an "English" matter and what is a "British" matter, so who decides which is which and when MPs from other parts of the country can and can't vote - which leaves the system (even more) open to political abuse. As I say - I think a more devolved decision making and spending system would lead to a better outcomes - lord knows I don't think local councils are a panacea - but they did provide widely available decent housing to many, local schools and colleges, infrastructure decisions etc before these powers were stripped away - I know there were scandals and graft - but I don't doubt that there is plenty now - just at a bigger scale.

 

I certainly don't think that the rest of the country IS London and the south east, as I don't live there myself and see the results - the south east has a large percentage of the population living there - but an even bigger percentage if you just consider England - decision making and financial assistance is very skewed towards it - a couple of examples in the paper recently...

 

Transport - the subsidy for public transport in London runs to over £2000 per head, whilst in the North East its under £6 - now I understand London is an expensive place and the capital etc etc - but that seems a bit too different to me - as London doesn't have to try and run routes out into rural low density areas.

 

Also - there has been long term lobbying to get the A1 in the North East turned to a dual carriage way - its the only main north south connection to Scotland in the east of the country and the cost is reckoned to be about £1 billion - a large amount - but that amount has just been nodded through to create two more underground stations in London - it hardly seems equitable does it?

[localzuk]

The Tories are trying to force this through as quickly as possible, conflating the Scottish devolution issue with a larger issue. We need a proper period of debate over it before we make any changes. Rushed reform is just as bad as no reform IMO.

[witch]

At the moment there is a fairly clear division on what is an English matter and what is not. The other devolved assemblies are very clear on what they are able to sort out for themselves, such as NHS charges, Uni fees etc so at the very least THOSE issues should be not voted on by non-England MPs. Some issues are murkier and need further study but it is fairly easy to make a start. An English Assembly based somewhere like Birmingham would separate English law in the same way that the other assemblies have done - I can't see why we can't have it.

As for money spent on London - it is the capital and I expect the Undergrounds "nodded through" were part of the Crossrail project that aims to make getting across London to other parts of the country a lot easier. London is a huge hub for business: " London has the fifth largest city economy in the world, after Tokyo, New York City, Los Angeles and Seoul with an estimated GVA of £309.3 billion ($546.4 billion) in 2012, and a per capita GVA of £37,232 ($65,768). By way of comparison, London's economy is roughly the same size as that of Sweden or Iran." So you can see why money gets spent on it.

As for the transport subsidy - the government provide a Bus Service Operators Grant to help provide bus services in remoter areas. Of course, IMHO buses should NEVER have been privatised anyway but that is another issue

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

At the moment there is a fairly clear division on what is an English matter and what is not. The other devolved assemblies are very clear on what they are able to sort out for themselves, such as NHS charges, Uni fees etc so at the very least THOSE issues should be not voted on by non-England MPs. Some issues are murkier and need further study but it is fairly easy to make a start. An English Assembly based somewhere like Birmingham would separate English law in the same way that the other assemblies have done - I can't see why we can't have it.

As for money spent on London - it is the capital and I expect the Undergrounds "nodded through" were part of the Crossrail project that aims to make getting across London to other parts of the country a lot easier. London is a huge hub for business: " London has the fifth largest city economy in the world, after Tokyo, New York City, Los Angeles and Seoul with an estimated GVA of £309.3 billion ($546.4 billion) in 2012, and a per capita GVA of £37,232 ($65,768). By way of comparison, London's economy is roughly the same size as that of Sweden or Iran." So you can see why money gets spent on it.

As for the transport subsidy - the government provide a Bus Service Operators Grant to help provide bus services in remoter areas. Of course, IMHO buses should NEVER have been privatised anyway but that is another issue