Ed Miliband has to concede that home rule for Scotland must mean that Scottish MP’s should no longer vote on English only matters. Not to do so would be unreasonable, unfair, and also deeply unpopular in England. It would give the Tories the biggest stick they could wish for to beat Labour with up and down England in May next year.
If Ed does agree to withdraw Scottish (and Welsh) Mp’s from English legislation though, any future non Conservative UK government might be paralysed by a Conservative majority of English MP’s elected on a minority of the English vote. Labour would be unable to deliver on the NHS, on Education, on welfare and on a whole host of key priorities. Worse, without an English executive there would be gridlock. Labour, even with Lib Dem support, wouldn’t even be able to deliver devolution to English Regions with an English Tory veto.
There is only one way for Labour to get out of this hole. They should only concede an answer to the West Lothian Question if the House of Commons is elected by proportional representation. AV has been rejected and it won’t do, we have to ensure that a future UK Parliament is not wrecked by English only Tory MP’s.
Most of us thought that the AV referendum in 2011 killed electoral reform for a generation. We were wrong, only the Alternative Vote was killed. We cannot continue with differing degrees of proportional representation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland while England remains in the grip of a system that will deliver paralysis in its government if it is not reformed before the West Lothian conundrum is put to bed. It’s up to Labour, but there is a new window of opportunity for electoral reform. If only they have the sense to take it.
* Richard Church is a former Councillor in Northampton, now living in Montgomeryshire
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
No, Leave didn't win the Brexit referendum because of Northern working class voters
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Reform under water
Geoffrey Payne
Richard Whelan
David Raw
Tom Reeve
81 Comments
Genuinely confused by why everyone thinks Ed M’s position on all this matters; if there are enough votes on the Tory and Lib Dem side to get the change through, Ed M’s view doesn’t make a jot of difference; Sure, it would be nice to have cross party political support – but even if he says no, it will most likely happen anyway.
Only if we kick up a fuss as well will it be blocked – which is why we should be pushing the PR agenda!
Maybe Ed had ought to do this, but surely from Labour’s perspective PR and answering the WLQ is a lose-lose. It’s not Conservative majorities that they have a problem with, it is the absence of a Labour majority.
I suggest it’s Cameron who has the bigger problems with his MPs and with the Clacton by-election looming next month.
Cameron’s problems are only just beginning.
For Lib. Dems., surely we should be resisting backbench Tory demands for an English Parliament in Westminster. We should be campaigning for real devolution of power to the regions, local councils and local communities.
And we should also be campaigning more strongly for votes at 16. It’s ridiculous that the 16-year-olds who could vote in the referendum won’t be able to vote in next year’s General Election. Hardly the way to keep them enthused, involved and impressed with our system of government!
Every MP is elected to have a vote on the government of the entire state, not just a particular region. It’s a really bad idea to set the precedent that a majority of MPs can deprive a minority of MPs of their votes. It’s too much like the increasingly exclusive Parliament of the 1640s, which ended up with the “Rump.”
Of course, the other way for Ed Miliband to ‘get out of this hole’ of not controling England is not to tinker with the election system but to WIN in England.
Largely agree with Peter Chegwyn.
We need a rather complicated answer to the problem of an English state. This involves some proper devolution to parts of England, who may want differing ranges of powers and responsibilities. Don’t be afraid of messy devolution in advance of federalism. We certainly don’t want to have English votes trumping the reasonable needs of parts of England while accommodating needs of Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland . Luckily we do have some experience of working together.
Any Constutional Convention needs to draw in civic society but not exclude politicians who understand diversity..
As I said in my recent Opinion post, the UK requires a federal framework based on its constituent nations, of whom Enghland is one. Teh good governance of ENghland req
Why not establish an English parliament (or assembly, or convention, or what have you) with authority to create regional governments?
Ed M shouldn’t concede that the House of Commons contains two classes of MPs, because, simply, that just won’t work.
How do we decide what is an “English only question” on which Scottish MPs cannot vote? If we had to decide whether or not Trident should move to Devonport, is that an English only question (i.e. “the Scots aren’t allowed to dump it on us”) or a British question (i.e. it would come from Scotland after all)? This is a recipe for everlasting indecisive wrangling and a loss of trust in democracy.
How can we contemplate an ongoing situation where there are two classes of government – Tory ones, which when they have a majority always have a majority; and non-Tory ones, which often when they have an overall majority are nevertheless hamstrung by a lack of that majority on most of the issues they have to deal with? So that people will get to understand that non-Tory government is government that can’t govern properly?
Two classes of MPs is no answer to the West Lothian question. It’s an answer that is miles worse than just ignoring the question.
My computer really wants to post this! As I said in my recent opinion post, the UK requires a federal framework based on its constituent nations, of whom England is one. The good governance of England requires much more empowerment of local communities, as is already proposed in the 2012 Campbell commission for Scotland. So the way to secure for local communities the power to take charge of their own lives is both federal nations and local communities, not confusing the two as if they were some sort of zero sum game in which only one option could be chosen. It is clear to me that many in England do not see this, and it is this which is the principal obstacle to securing a Liberal future for all of us.
“They should only concede an answer to the West Lothian Question if the House of Commons is elected by proportional representation.”
How does this answer the question at hand; the west lothian question, other than to further fetishize PR for the pleasure of libdems?
PS, proportional representation solves none of the problems I describe above, so it makes no sense for Ed M to ask for it in this specific situation.
Examples of the realities just with devolved Corporation Tax.
1. You can’t have Scottish and Northern Irish MPs voting on Corporation Tax for England and Wales when it is in competition with separately set Corporation Tax in Scotland and NI.
2. Having different rates of Corporation Tax in England and Scotalnd, as proposed, is not going to work in practice anyway. Even less will having different rates of Corporation Tax in each English Region. The problem with Corporation Tax differences between Ni and Eire when there is a porous border has already shown up the difficulty.
3. You can’t have an MP elected in Scotland as a Treasury minister involved setting tax rates which are solely for England and in conpetition with Scotland. There would be a conflict of interest with him representing a Scottish constituency and Scottish interests.
The problem only remains if we try to use the Westminster Parliament as BOTH the UK Parliament and the English Parliament. Logically, in any devolved system you need a parliament for each level, one for the Federal and one for each ‘state’. Either England needs her own parliament or parliaments if the ‘states’ are the regions of England.
Trying to use Westminster as both the Federal & the English Parliament means that we will forever have two or more classes of MP. Full English MPs and MPs Lite for those representing non English constituencies. I can see that going down like a bucket of cold sick in Scotland, Wales and NI.
And how do I elect my MP? Based on his/her abilities as a Federal representative or on the basis of his/her English credentials.
We have to have a proper devolution settlement that provides England with her own parliament or parliaments — otherwise England should seek a referendum on her independence and her leaving the UK.
Picking up on points raised by Peter Chegwyn, voters in the North East of England “devolution referendum” did not reject regional devolution full stop. Citizens were asked rubbish questions and were offered a rubbish solution — one which did not deliver meaningful power to the region. Assemblies were expected to promote, enhance and improve services, but didn’t have the right to *run* anything. Consequently few citizens voted for a talking shop
An English parliament, particularly one based in Westminster, scares me more than the current arrangement. It will be even more centralised around London. Genuine regional assemblies would have devolved powers to run policing, social services, health services etc. Maybe we could get rid of more quangos. Elevated status for big northern and western cities is not a solution — debate always ends up about economic benefit rather than about people and their rights.
Are we going to let the best be the enemy of the good? Of course a full blown federal constitution is what we need, with full and equal separation of powers for each constituent part of the UK. Is that going to happen in the six months? No.
However, if we let the Tories play the English nationalist card, they will win a majority next year on the English backlash against Scottish only home rule and the WLQ. That’s what they are gunning for. We will then have a two tier HofC, no regional devolution and the reduction in the number of MP’s that they wanted to do this parliament. Us and Labour need to say how we will deal with the WLQ now, before the next general election. The solution in the short term won’t be ideal, but PR will make it much more practical. A separate English Parliament and or Regional assemblies is the stage beyond, but if the Tories have their way will never get there.
Problem with a full English Parliament with same devolved powers as all other nations is that it would be more powerful than a UK Parliament dealing soleley with reserved powers. That’s why they have to keep it in Westminster. If not, Westminster will dissapear and whence the Union.
“You can’t have an MP elected in Scotland as a Treasury minister involved setting tax rates which are solely for England and in competition with Scotland.”
Spot on David Evershed. So before Danny Alexander clears his desk at the Treasury, he must *at the very least*, modify the Barnett formula, so that English students can enjoy the same free tuition fees that his Scottish constituents enjoy.?
We already have more than enough levels of government in England with:
– EU
– Westminster
– County Council
– District Council
– Parish Council
We don’t want to add more bureaucracy and cost in the way Scotland Wales and NI have done with an English Assembly.
I don’t see anything wrong with restricting Scottish, Welsh and NI MP’s from voting on English affairs. If the Barnet formula is a barrier then let’s change it. The more that the rest of England become as successful as London the better.
David Allen in using the example of Trident also raises a new question about UK wide questions and decision making: Whilst he is looking at it from a Westminster perspective, I suggest we also need to look at it from the devolved assembly perspective. For example, if Westminster decides to to move Trident from the Clyde to Devonport, what role should and does Holyrood and it’s members play?
@John Dunn
We are agreed.
I would point out however that there is no such thing as “free tuition fees”. There is a cost which has to be borne. It is just a question of devising the fairest way to pay for it.
I agree that we must not let the best be the enemy of the good — but we need to know what the best looks like and compromise from it. The Scots have been promised Devo Max. That sets a benchmark of what England, Wales and NI need. Accepting a second rate compromise ‘as a termporary measure’ pending a full review will result in that compromise being locked into our system for a generation or more.
As for too many levels of government — this should be an opportunity to do some substantial pruning. 4 should be enough — EU, Federal, Regional and Local. Exactly how big or small Regions and Locals are needs to be determined — but one size should not fit all.
eg Tony Woods. By Federal do you mean Westminster Parliament? and by Regional the four National Parliaments (however constituted)?
How, you might ask, do we determine the boundaries within a regionalised England?
Pretty randomly and badly is my guess. Who lives in Scotland, Wales or England on the borders of those nations? The people who live there have their own opinions about whether the border is in the right place. Similar circumstances apply for our friends on the island of Ireland.
As a Lancastrian, I can easily define the western border where I grew up; it is called the Irish Sea. In other parts of the county (and I’d start off using ancient boundaries), the change between East Lancs and West Yorks is less distinct. I’m humble enough to ask people what they think. Do you want your health service to be run by Yorks capital or Lancs capital? And don’t fret too much, because the caring services will carry on wherever you live.
This is about constitutional law! We must get it right! That’s true, but as long as we do not actively harm people and try our best to avoid passive harm, we should cope with a bit of muddling along.
We won’t get it right first time — we should presume to get things wrong. The complexity of the problems are beyond our comprehensions. We should prepare ourselves to change the things that are ridiculously wrong and to muddle along with less serious ones.
@Phil Beesley 19th Sep ’14 – 3:37pm
Excellent points Phil. I agree – a so-called English Parliament based on Westminster would be the worst of all worlds for all but London. How is it that London alone as an English region is considered worthy of its own assembly? I also agree we do not need city-states vying with one another to the exclusion of the surrounding cities, towns, villages and countryside.
Unless someone can offer some significantly greater benefits of a federal structure, I personally would be more than happy with a written constitution and devolved regional government but perhaps with the option of a devolution vs federalism referendum if there is a significant demand after say 15 years. These are momentous changes to the UK constitution.
@Phil Beesley 19th Sep ’14 – 4:35pm
Ah, a fellow Lancastrian – no wonder you talk such sense! 🙂
David Evershed: “We already have more than enough levels of government in England…”
Others might conclude that we have the *wrong* levels of government, with too much power at EU/Westminster.
The County Council | District Council hierarchy was created in 1972 but was not adopted everywhere. Some places had Metropolitan Counties and, post 1986, Unitary Authorities were created.
David Evershed 19th Sep ’14 – 4:15pm
David, would it be impolite of me to ask in which county you live?
Re: “The more that the rest of England become as successful as London the better.” Do you expect much of a debate on that? Do you not think other areas might not have been trying and slipping ever further back as more and more head offices and research centres etc shifted to London and surrounding areas during the 1980 and ever since?
London in particular acts as a black hole on the rest of the UK economy.
No wonder this has been fixing politicians for decades! Look at the US and legislative paralysis there.
We need a clarity of vision, to know what we want to see, before we look at how to achieve it. My fear is that the Tory back benches will open the door to EDL and UKIP in a quick fix before the election next year.
As for Labour, they are between a rock and a hard place !
Interesting times!
David Evershed: “The more that the rest of England become as successful as London the better.”
I’d love other UK cities to be more successful — and as much unlike London as possible.
@Stephen Hesketh
“David, would it be impolite of me to ask in which county you live?”
I live in Buckinghamshire
@Phil Beesley
I am not suggesting the rest of England become like London but become as successful as London
“as successful as London”
As successful at what? Taking a far greater share of public investment funds than it pays for in taxes? I don’t see how all the regions can simultaneously take money off each other.
@David Evershed 19th Sep ’14 – 5:21pm
Not exactly representative of the rest of the UK outside London then!
Regional government is a long standing Liberal and Liberal Democrat theme. More so than any other party. This might just be a Liberal idea whose time as come within the National political consciousness. So long as we don’t get hooked on regional city states such as Sheffield(!), this may well be a party-unifying, popular vote-winning policy for us.
Please could some of our regional Parliamentarians run through this with the Westminster Bubblers?
“a Liberal idea whose time as come ” … That’s reet lad ‘oose time as come! LOL
Lovefest with Stephen Hesketh (who I have not encountered before) and concurrent debate with David Evershed are hapenchance.
David Evershed: “If the Barnet formula is a barrier then let’s change it.”
Well it isn’t really a formula. It’s a mechanism named after Joel Barnett, who settled a cabinet agreement using a bit of maths. It was stuff made up on the spur of the moment to fix an immediate problem. It was not expected to be extant for 35 years.
The Barnett Formula isn’t comparable to the theories of Keynes, who expected that his works might apply forever. Joel Barnett is an old bloke and it would be wrong to expect him to be part of the current debate. Joel just fixed it for the cabinet in 1979.
I am in total agreement that the Barnett Formula needs to change. Joel Barnett never considered the possibility of a South West of England Assembly, with Cornwall seeking more difference.
The 1st thing we should do is back the idea of a Citizens Convention on the Scots model. There are a few things we might be able to push through Parliament before The Election, Votes at 16 perhaps & an English Grand Commitee. There isnt time or the will for more complex changes, thats why we need a convention to pressure Parliament after The Election.
The next Crisis is in 3 weeks, possibly. UKIPs victory in Clacton may be followed by other defections of Tory (& possibly Labour ) MPs. If so the whole Political situation could be transformed. We will just have to wait & see on that.
BTW while everyones eyes were on Scotland, Labours Poll lead fell by half over less than a week, that may mean something or not.
Paul Barker: “The 1st thing we should do is back the idea of a Citizens Convention on the Scots model.”
The first thing which we ought to do is nowt.
Zero, zilch, sit on our behinds, and wait and think.
We should argue internally about the solutions we seek, interminably.
Liberals have been rushed too many times in the past.
Be careful! If the changes considered for Westminster mean that there can never realistically be a Scottish Prime Minister or Chancellor (a “King” of Scots becoming a “King ” of Britain) – then this is a very temporary victory indeed.
Paul Barker: “The next Crisis is in 3 weeks, possibly. UKIPs victory in Clacton may be followed by other defections of Tory (& possibly Labour ) MPs. ”
That is about electoral problems rather than liberalism.
Not enough liberals vote for Liberal Democrats. I am serious.
Small L liberals are not convinced that Lib Dems are the party for them. Simon Titley delivered a cracking good essay about why Lib Dems fail: http://liberator-magazine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-real-reason-why-liberal-democrat.html
I am with those who are thinking it makes sense to re-visit elected regional assemblies — but with more powers than were on offer last time, at the same time as removing county councils and moving to unitary authorities. That way we get to devolve power from Westminster equitably, and properly retain a West,inter parliament to do those things better done at a national level.
The problem with the advocates of an English Parliament is that they want it be an extension of Westminster and they are simply trying to exclude groups from voting in Westminster which is the seat of the British not English government. To be blunt it’s the Conservative Party who can’t cope with the fact that they simply can no longer form a majority government throwing a strop. Increased powers for Scotland were put on the table because Cameron’s divisive mishandling of the regions nearly lead to the breakup of Britain which would have flushed the entire economy down the toilet, reduced our effectiveness on the world stage to a joke and caused social chaos. The Tories need to be put back in their box and contained, not encouraged.
Glenn: “The Tories need to be put back in their box and contained, not encouraged.”
If Tories have a problem, it is their problem.
Regionalists do not wish to place Conservatives in boxes.
Regionalists, who have tried to create a form of inclusive politics , do not build boxes.
Phil,
I’m not convinced by regionalists and federalist arguments. England without the rest of the UK is tiny with a disproportionate amount of the wealth concentrated in London and a regional/federalist solution would actually concentrate that disparity further thus disadvantaging other regions further. IMO this would actually cause further splits and so fourth. Unlike a lot of Libs I support the EU but I don’t think its a role model and I’m not impressed by the US either political system either.
Of course another way out of the whole is tell the English we don’t qualify because they are worried about their future, I feel sure the voters can help by not electing them a little like Scotland
The question that most needs answering is the London Question. London is bigger, more coherent and more exceptional than Scotland. It already has its own political culture and structures. There is no reason why the London Assembly could not be expanded and given all the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. The only question then is who holds those powers for the rest of England. I can’t see anyone going for an ‘Outer England’ assembly so regions are the only option left. For what it’s worth, the party regions look as good as any to me.
@Phil Beesley 19th Sep ’14 – 5:58pm and 8:07pm.
Thanks and likewise Phil. I can only say we must tend to post on different threads – I am here far too much according to Mrs. H 🙂
My personal preference would be for us to publicly reaffirm the parties longstanding commitment to devolution, local democracy and governance and that we would be looking at our agreed party policies and consulting within the party as to our proposals for wider discussion.
This is not something an existing leader or manifesto coordinator should be rushing out the proverbial back of the cigarette packet policy pronouncement on.
Any pronouncements on this topic must be made as Liberal Democrats and totally distanced from the historically and naturally centralising Tories and our existing coalition with them.
On the latter topic I commend Phil’s link to the Simon Titley Liberator article.
@Glenn 19th Sep ’14 – 10:58pm. Sorry Glen but your points actually embody many of reasons why we need devolved regional powers. See Steve 5:35pm !
i still have a lot of time for Raddiy’s notional Celtland as forming the basis by which we subdivide england.
10.0m = Wales & Scotland + NI (They keep their separate assemblies because they are special)
8.3m = London (will probably grow to 10.0m in thirty years
So we are looking to design for circa 2040 with five english regions of roughly 10.0m a pop, each containing a number of large conurbations that form their economic hubs.
I agree completely with this article. Some have said (rightly) that from Labour’s perspective PR and answering the WLQ is a lose-lose. That’s why Labour will be desperate that both questions go away. But Labour have a couple of problems which could lead to a cascade effect on all of these…
The first is that “english votes for english laws” has apparently been agreed in government between us and the Tories and is now happening. So the WLQ is going to be settled one way or another, leaving Labour in a difficult position. They will be desperatly thinking how are they going to wrestle back power over England, knowing that opposing english votes for english laws is going to be difficult politically (it will look like naked self-interest, because it is).
AV is dead and buried. Labour helped to make this so and in my opinion we Lib Dems should not attempt to revive AV. It’s in Labour’s interests but probably less so ours and we would get the public backlash over seeing to go against the AV referendum result if we agreed to it as some package with them, if that happens. So that really leaves PR, by default. Maybe not in Labour’s interests, but if FPTP shuts them out of power in English maybe it will become so.
Interesting times ahead.
Regional government that separates the home counties from one another, and London from its hinterland (I.e. those neighbouring countries) is unlikely to be popular or understood.
In these areas at least (speaking from the London Essex border) the separation of London as a region seems absurd. First consider the huge numbers that commute across that border. Then consider how London councils are increasingly moving large poor populations out of London due to housing shortages. And while this is a population movement that has been going on since before WW2, the resentments of the powerless-feeling working class, which is finding expression currently through ukip etc, should not be ignored.
Counties, dear autocorrect, counties.
Stephen Haskworth.
Sorry Stephen, I don’t think they do. Otherwise I wouldn’t have posted them. My thoughts are more in line with George Lund. I don’t think the problem is the concentration of power, so much as it’s the concentration of wealth. Regional/federalist assemblies would see the amount taken from the Nation’s wealth reduced and end up worse off. London is a world banking hub, not a small town with a few charity shops, a Tesco’s and some small businesses.
The problem for the Lib Dems is that it has even less support in England than Labour. So how exactly does a Tory dominated English assembly with the backup of UKIP benefit the Lib Dems ?
The reason the Scots voted No was because the Union was seen a mutually beneficial. The minute it stops being mutually beneficial you can kiss Scotland and probably the economy goodbye. This was a skin of the teeth win for No based mostly on caution. Remove caution from the mix and the union is done for because Scotland will use something like the proposed EU referendum as a pretext for another referendum but this time will have marginalised Lib Dem and Labour members of the Scottish government putting their full weight behind the Yes Campaign.
I haven’t seen or heard Nick Clegg for weeks. Has he been hiding in the same deep hole?
@ Phil Beesley,
Lord Barnett has given an interview in today’s Daily Telegraph , ‘My flawed formula has paid Scotland too much’.
@Glenn 20th Sep ’14 – 1:30pm
“My thoughts are more in line with George Lund.”
By which you both appear to mean London/south east England-centic.
Glenn, from what you say you a) don’t appear to have an issue with the concentration of political power in a distant corner of the UNITED KINGDOM – just wealth – and b) think London as ‘a world banking hub’ is more worthy of representative democracy than “a small town with a few charity shops, a Tesco’s and some small businesses. ”
You are not of a particularly strong Liberal or Democratic persuasion then!
jedibeeftrix 20th Sep ’14 – 9:42am
Jedi – do please tell me 2040 is a typo!
Stephen Hesketh
……….London as ‘a world banking hub’ is more worthy of representative democracy than “a small town with a few charity shops, a Tesco’s and some small businesses. ”
You are not of a particularly strong Liberal or Democratic persuasion then!
I had to laugh at this. 🙂
Some rural towns dream of having –“..a few charity shops, a Tesco’s and some small businesses. ” coping as they do with a pub, a church that nobody goes to and a long drive to do shopping in another town.
@JohnTilley 20th Sep ’14 – 4:43pm
Indeed they would John (not too sure about the Tesco bit though!). Just as long as you noted I was quoting Glenn’s example of a small unimportant town i.e. one located somewhere (anywhere) outside London and being without a city banker community.
Stephen,
Way to twist what I said.
What I am saying is that London will dominate even more if you split the country into regional assemblies because it will have more financial autonomy not less. which means less money to elsewhere not more. I’m saying that small towns will be forced to tax at higher rates to compensate which will increase not decrease wealth disparity. You guys also talk like everyone vying for local power is innately liberal and will not be driven by all sorts of other factors. So lets say we give regional autonomy to somewhere with a conservative majority. Well, that means further cuts to welfare and more hardship for anyone who needs the support who happens to be unfortunate enough to be living in those regions. The dangers of local authority control and the perceived social needs of the a local community can also be seen in Rotherham..
” So how exactly does a Tory dominated English assembly with the backup of UKIP benefit the Lib Dems ?” [Glenn 20th Sep ’14 – 1:30pm]
Well from some of the discussion over years, it would seem that some members would prefer to go back to the days when the LibDem’s only aspired to having power (at Westminster) as this meant they could make lots of proposals and not have to deal with all the problems that bedevil real world decision making and delivery…
However, looking back it would seem that what has been lost is that whilst the LibDem’s were under represented at Westminster for a long period of time they were a major power in local government. I therefore would suggest that the real issue isn’t so much the composition of an ‘English’ assembly but the composition of regional/local assemblies.
Why is it democratic for MPs whose constituents will not be subject to certain legislative changes to impose them on another group, for example the English, if the majority of their MPs are opposed to it ?
No wonder people have become disconnected from politics and politicians when the basic concept of democracy is ignored or ridiculed. Of course there will always be difficulties but life is about dealing with problems.
It is this sort of nitpicking that is destroying Liberalism. In Germany the Liberal FDP has been crushed between the Greens and the new Alternative for Germany which both present clear and popular programmes to a wider section of the electorate. For Alternative for Germany in Britain read UKIP because many who voted Liberal have gone there in both cases.
Political parties have to appeal to significant numbers of people to have any power or influence, not just to a handful of activists
One might as well ask why the Member for Witney should have any authority over any area larger than Witney. (This is not necessarily a bad question, but not one to be answered by any means short of a wholesale renovation of the entire system.) As I said before, Westminster MPs are elected as members for the United Kingdom as a whole, not as members for Scotland, members for England, members for Wales, or members for Northern Ireland. They have no especial connection with those units (devolved or otherwise) than that their electoral constituencies happen to be located there. They do not even have to live there. Thus, there is no guarantee that “English MPs” would actually be English, or would take a personal interest in English laws. Some of them are conceivably more mindful of Swiss law.
All this fuss about some elected MPs having votes on things that are nothing to do with their constituency.
It diverts attention away from hundreds of members of The House of Lords, over one hundred of whom are still hereditaries and two dozen are CofE Bishops.
Which is the greater evil and few dozen MPs from Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland or the completely unelected completely unaccoutable Lords?
Some of the Lords still get away with not paying taxes and spending most of their time outside the UK.
Some of these Lords are from Scotland, and horror of horrors some are even Irish !!!
Why should Bishops have a vote on laws that are nothing to do with their religion. I do not hear Cameron talk about Secular Votes for Secular Laws. Who will rid us of these interfering Bishops?
If we are worried about English Votes for English Laws, why do we allow the Queen of Papua New Guinea so much influence in our democracy ?
The Queen of 15 independent countries is able to sit in our parliament every year and tell us what “her” government is going to do.
Perhaps we need a campaign for an English Head of State for English Laws?
@JohnTilley: Many a solid constitutional proposal has begun its life as satire.
@Glenn 20th Sep ’14 – 5:42pm
Sorry if you think I have twisted what you said. The view of the majority outside London is that the capital has, for far too long, striped resources from the rest of the country. It is only by cities and counties coming together as social, political and economic regions and by like-minded regions working together that the over-dominance of London will be challenged.
We do agree however that if city-regions are set up, the likelihood will be the likes of Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds vying with one another to the detriment of all.
An English parliament would be unlikely to challenge the overall dominance of the capital.
This leaves the only sensible solution to be the major devolution of power over regional matters to regional or state assemblies, local issues to local councils with the remaining UK national and international matters at Westminster.
Base income taxes and spending on defence and the NHS etc could be set for the entire UK but should a region or state wish to increase say specific health or social service spending in their area then additional taxes could be levied locally.
@David-1 20th Sep ’14 – 10:21pm
And the satirical points are? 🙂
Oops – just to clarify …. and the satirical points in all but the final paragraph are?
I actually think John’s earlier points are politically valid!
David-1 20th Sep ’14 – 10:21pm
@JohnTilley: Many a solid constitutional proposal has begun its life as satire.
And in the case of AV and HofL reform ended in farce ?
Stephen Hesketh 21st Sep ’14 – 5:01am
I actually think John’s earlier points are politically valid!
Thank you Stephen, as a Lancastrian you are no doubt aware of the absurdities of the Duchy of Lancaster ? —
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster
So we live in a constitutional “reality” where The Duke of Lancaster is also The Queen of Papua New Guinea.
Who needs satire?
I cannot believe I am on a LD forum….
The WLQ has been around for over 30 years and the Scottish referendum has changed the extent but not the principle that was started in 97
The question on how to form an appropriate English Parliament has been around for a while and it is, rightly, seen as a difficult problem.
Why?
The English don’t know what they want from a Parliament, whereas the devolved assemblies/Parliaments were formed after much discussion and a referendum. Do we want a full English Parliament ot Regions? There are advantages and difficulties wth both
There has been no demand from the English for an extra layer of Government, we already have a pretty fragmented and inconsistent system of local Government
The consequences will require a complete review of the UK Governance system – the other Parliaments only covered a small percentage of the population. England is different. How will any new Parliament interact with the UK and where will powers sit
Just because it is a difficult question shouldn’t mean it isn’t asked and it will require maturity and cross-party engagement. There is no place for party politics. The Scottish constitutional convention showed a way forward and we English should follow.
The idea that a Tory-led solution is the answer to this – essentially delivered in 3 months – is ridiculous and I find it saddening that lots of you seem to be supporting it.
The answer to the WLQ sits within a proper devolved/federal system. The WLQ has no relevance to Westminster which is the UK legislature. The problem is that no-one has put forward a devolution bill. The fault lies with us and our representatives
A final point – why is the WLQ so difficult politically for Labour (and the LD as well to a lesser extent)? It is because they are the the only party with strong representation in all 3 British countries – the Tories are essentially an rural and suburban English Party. No representation in Scotland, mediocre in Wales and minimal in urban England.
Are we going to let this party of limited appeal, and with an appalling record on Constitutional reform be allowed to define our future constitution without any consultation – just so they can try and use England as a trojan horse for staying in power? With the proposals to use English MPs in Westminster as an ad-hoc English Parliament would mean FPTP…is that acceptable to you? As it is an idea from the Tories, I would guess Yes
Indeed I am John, along with the Duchy of Cornwall. And that the MP for Sheffield Hallam remains … and the Tories are already backsliding on the promises made to the people of Scotland and that we are not publicly bouncing all over them for this … and that we are failing to generate any media attention on an issue on which we have historically led the non-nationalist parties.
@stuart moran 21st Sep ’14 – 8:09am
I think your last three paragraphs in particular hit many of the nails on the head.
Thank you Stephen
Just another point
The MPs from Scotland are not ‘Scottish MPs’. They are UK MPs representing Scottish seats. ‘Scottish MPs’ are called MSPs and sit in Edinburgh. A subtle but important distinction
stuart moran
You ask –“..Are we going to let this party of limited appeal, and with an appalling record on Constitutional reform be allowed to define our future constitution without any consultation – just so they can try and use England as a trojan horse for staying in power? ”
Clegg has gone AWOL since 7am on Friday morning when he was humiliated by Cameron who stripped his deputy of responsibility for constitutional reform and handed it to William Hague.
The question we should be asking is –“What’s the point of Nick Clegg?”
@JohnTilley 21st Sep ’14 – 8:56am
“The question we should be asking is –“What’s the point of Nick Clegg?””
Well that’s obviously one way to kill off a thread!
John Tilley: I am no fan of the House of Lords but it no longer has a veto on legislation and nor does the Queen whereas MPs from Scotland could prevent legislation which English people want and which does not affect their constituents. Even many Labour MPs accept that this is wrong. To their credit SNP MPs do not vote on legislation which does not affect Scotland.
It may be sad that many people in England vote Conservative but they do and they have the right to have their views respected. It is lack of democracy and a failure to respect the wishes of the people which has caused the present disillusionment with politics. If the Westminster politicians renege in any significant way on their promises to the Scottish voters before the referendum there will be a backlash, be in no doubt.
Federalism demands either an English Parliament or Regional English federal entities. There really does not seem to be a demand for actual ‘state’ level entities within England. Let’s have a proper conversation and convention to establish that, but asymetric and dangerous though it maybe, I think we are stuck with a England having Home Rule as one of four countries in the Union.
I don’t think we can mess about with English votes deals etc. Simple solution remove all non English MPs from House of Commons who then become, again the ‘commons of England in Parliament assembled’.
Transform the Lords into a federal chamber with federal government arising from it.
We can’t mess around any longer.
Someone needs to explain to Clegg that devo on demand will increase resentment about democratic inequality and complication.
@ alec – “There really does not seem to be a demand for actual ‘state’ level entities within England.”
Thank the Lord, for a proper federal system requires a formal constitutional document which would scupper the principle of Parliamentary supremacy.
By all means devolve away via whatever mechanism fits england best within the broader requirement of the Union, but don’t destroy that which I value most.
I don’t support any political party, as I have very little respect for most of them as a type, I am in favour of the Union and am English,.
If the Lib Dems and Labour parties are worried that an English Parliament will mean they never get power, the answer is simple. All they have to do is attract more voters to their cause! They might both consider not reneging on their manifesto pledges as a starting point.
The fact that legislation has been imposed on the English by using Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh MP’s votes, when their own constituents haven’t had to share, what was mostly, the burden of increased student, health and other fees is shameful. If Regional Assemblies are foisted on England, by the Westminster Lib Dem and Labour elite, it will not only cost all of England more in taxes, but will see the break-up of England. Something which many, to my mind, appear to have been working towards for a long time. Region will compete against region, not for the benefit of England, but just for their own narrow interests. There was no love-loss between Liverpool and Portsmouth, when the debate over subsidies for the ports was being discussed. They were both, naturally, just concerned with how their own area would win or lose and I doubt a ‘Manchester’ et al Regional Assemblies will be overly concerned with their more rural areas. Just a look at the policies of your Local Authority is a good example of how the biggest conurbations in every area gets precedence, with the smaller and rural areas often coming a very poor second or third, when it comes to supplying goods and services. it’s easier to cover a majority of people by structuring supply that way, which helps them when it comes to getting people to vote them in for another term of office.
I hear a lot about how Manchester should have more power and that, if we do have an English Parliament it should be in the North West, North East, Yorkshire, etc. etc., as they are never thought of in Westminster. Anyone who thinks that the Westminster elite give even a glancing thought to East and West Sussex, Dorset, Hampshire, Cornwall, Devon etc. etc. are deluding themselves. The truth is the electorate, wherever we are, don’t cross their minds until we are nearing an election!
The most cost effective way to answer the West Loathian question is to have only English MPs debating/voting on English only matters, in the House of Commons, two days (or more) a week, with similar arrangements for the Lords. This could be achieved the first week they come back next month and doesn’t require a change in legislation. It won’t cost much to achieve and the electorate won’t have to pay for 3rd homes and extra expenses for MPs and their dependents from England to travel to an outsourced English Parliament, based somewhere other than London. I am sure the majority will still claim they need to keep their London flats/houses as well.
As an example, the BBC spent £24M to relocate some of its organisation to Salford and, under a Freedom of Information Request, they confirmed that “between May 2011 and September 2013 the BBC has spent £1.3M on flights for staff shuttling to and from Manchester”. MPs are not renowned for their reluctance to spend our money. I doubt their will be many Easy Jet seats being booked to shuttle them back and forth to a Parliament outside London, just a lot of 1st Class Rail seats, so that they can ‘work’ during their journey time.
What I think is the most telling about this entire debate is that, even though the Scottish Referendum went on for over three years, none of the political representatives from any party appears to have given the slightest consideration to how, whichever way Scotland voted, the disenfranchised English voter should be given the ‘parity’ which the three party leaders said they wanted in their ‘Vow’ for Scotland. Where are the back-up plans the three leaders agreed with each other? I can only assume they thought the much less demonstrative English would just go along with things, as we have done for the last 20 years, providing most of the finances, whilst receiving the least representation.
Politicians against having an English Parliament cite the fear of having two-classes of MPs being the reason why it shouldn’t exist. I never hear them say that they think it’s right that the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh electorate should to continue to have twice the representation, that the English have, even though that is what exists now.
We should have an English only Parliament in Westminster now. Once we have that, discussions could take place on whether it should be based outside London, with the English electorate being given all the costings that would involve and the opportunity to vote on it, either at an English only election, or by a Referendum.
English MPs being the only ones who vote on English matters is seriously muddled, as it asks the Commons to function both as an English Parliament and UK one. The extent of the muddle is shown by concern over the Commons having potentially one person who can speak for a majority of UK MPs and another, of a different party, who speaks for a majority of English MPs.
Significant devolution to regional assemblies seems the way to go, with an English Parliament as a second choice.
This then means the Westminster Parliament can indeed be the parliament which handles things that cannot reasonably be devolved — which would include things like defence, foreign affairs, and co-ordinating things between regions (not controlling).
It is perfectly possible (and probable) to have a UK Parliament where there the majority of seats are held by one party, yet others are the majority in regional assemblies — which then makes the case for pragmatic governance.
@Glynis: You seem confused. If there were Members of an English Parliament, they would not *simultaneously* be UK MPs, and they would not require “3rd homes,” etc. If an English Parliament met in, say, Birmingham, then the only members of it traveling back and forth from London would be those who actually represented London constituencies.
You complain that Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland “continue to have twice the representation, that the English have.” This is a confused and erroneous impression. Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies and executives which deal with some but not all of their local government. Other issues are dealt with by Westminster, where Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland are represented more or less in proportion to their population. (There are some slight discrepancies; the average English constituency contains 1.12 times the number of people of the average Welsh constituency, but this hardly amounts to the Welsh having “twice the representation” of the English. There are similar discrepancies within England itself.)
What England lacks is not appropriate representation, but a layer of devolved government competent to deal with local affairs; rather, English government is carried on by Westminster. This is indeed anomalous; however, excluding MPs from constituencies in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland from voting on nominally English-only legislation would do absolutely nothing to resolve the anomaly; rather, it would create new anomalies, and would create a continual tug of war with every vote over whether the legislation was on British or English matters.