Having the scars on my back from attempts to reform the Lords, I know how inclined people are to declare constitutional reform ‘not thought through’. In the case of Lords Reform, this was patently ridiculous since introducing elections to the House has been the subject of more self-interested cogitation and political procrastination than just about any other subject.
Proposals for “devo-max” to Scotland are not ill-considered either. Our own redoubtable Menzies Campbell has produced two formidable reports on “Home Rule All Round”, setting out a federal future for the UK. Lord Strathclyde has produced a not dissimilar report on the subject for the Conservatives. Labour have their own similar (though moderately less ambitious) proposals. Even arch anti-devolutionist Michael Forsyth told the BBC he favours a federal solution now!
There is no haste on those issues, which are well-aired, and must now be addressed as promised. The panic measure is the Prime Minister’s desire to change the voting rights of Westminster MPs at the same ‘pace’ as further devolution to Scotland. I fear this tactic risks the success of both initiatives.
As the Cornish often tell tourists who stop to ask for directions, “you don’t want to start from here.” To assess the right reforms for Westminster as it relates to England, we first need to determine the devolution settlement for England. If we do not, conservatives in both other parties will be content to tinker with Parliament and stop there. We will miss this great opportunity to devolve power within England. I suggest that the people of Yorkshire, for example, won’t think of an English Parliament as handing them any power.
I have followed with interest recent LDV posts, and comments on my last post, about the features and flaws of our party policy. It is fair to say that it has both. As ever, though, it is easy to be clear about what we don’t want, and less easy to articulate something which is both desirable and deliverable. Maria Pretzler fears a patchwork under ‘devolution on demand’. Yet I fear the total failure and inadequacy of an imposed, top-down regional assemblies model. Even our own party members did not support it when the working group consulted on this issue, during its work. What would other citizens make of it?
Meanwhile, neither the Prime Minister nor anyone else should believe that ‘English votes for English laws’ will be neat and tidy, or cost-free. It implies, of course, a centralised English executive and an English First Minister. That may suit David Cameron’s LinkedIn profile, but for my money it is certainly not the way to break the yoke of centralisation in England. Tory MPs who think the answer is an English Parliament are surely asking the wrong question.
We are not a country of revolutions so we are not going to write from scratch a new, neat constitution. And the much vaunted idea of a constitutional convention is not a silver bullet either. The Scottish Convention – with which so many parallels are drawn – started off with all its participants broadly agreeing on their objectives. A convention on the whole gamut of constitutional issues in the UK would begin – and end – with vastly diverging views and no progress. However, I am persuaded that if we were to succeed in bringing in the Devolution Enabling Act our policy envisages, we should set up a convention of local leaders and civic society groups from across the country to provoke each area to consider the devolution they want and in what form. We do not want large chunks of England left behind.
Liberal Democrats should now take our agreed party policy by the horns and argue for it as the best way to kick-start real, bottom-up devolution for England. Once we know the ‘pace’ at which that can be achieved, we can determine what to do with what is left at Westminster.
* Lord Tyler is the Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson for Political and Constitutional Reform.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Two new Makerfield by-election polls gives Burnham 5 and 12 point leads
Jana
Peter Martin
Nonconformistradical
53 Comments
I agree that I don’t like English Votes for English Laws, but I have to counter this narrative that there is this power tree that produces power cherries that we can hand to constituents. The only way you could give Yorkshire more power is if you gave them a regional assembly and didn’t reduce their ability to influence policy in other areas of the country too, but this is a have your cake and eat it policy and wouldn’t be accepted by everyone else. Hence it leads to the unravelling of England and inward facing parochialism. We need some sort of regional assemblies and English parliament, without simply creating lots more layers of government.
I’m in a rush today, because I’m heading off out, but I feel this is important to counter.
Best wishes
For England, one simple way to start, would be to return to local authorities all the power that have been taken from them over the last 40 years. Then more powers could be added. The only change I would like to see is a single tier of local government where there are now two tiers, but keep Parish Councils in rural areas.
English MPs only voting for English Laws would break up the now settled nature of the Union. Why? Because Scottish MPs, Welsh MPs and N.I. MPs would lose their full voting powers in Westminster and yet be unable to vote in their own regional assemblies unless they were elected to those regional assemblies or unless they were given automatic membership of their respective regional assemblies . Under Cameron’s proposals English MPs would have both national an d regional voting rights but MPs from other countries in the union would only be able to vote on a limited range of Westminster bills and have no voting rights in their regional assemblies. Cameron’s proposals would create a number of second class Westminster MPs from the regions and effectively destroy the UK Parliament because there would be an inequality of power and status between all Westminster MPS. It would create an even worse anomaly than the West Lothian Question. A real dog’ s breakfast.
But what is most important is for Nick Clegg to make sure Cameron and Miliband stick to their pledge. Nick has form on pledges and he cannot afford to ditch this one. This means giving Scotland what was promised in the timetable it was promised. rUK can then take care of itself.
I was surprised that Salmond resigned, but my guess now is that he is confident that the negotiations with Westminster will fail and he does not want to be associated with failure. Then he can come back for one last try at independence. There is time because there is not a Scottish election until 2016, plenty of time to show up the three party leaders at Westminster as liers. There is so much to play for. I hope the LibDems get it right.
A powerful argument and having been through the last regional assembly in the NW, understand how awful the top down approach was. It gave the semblance of devolution with none of the power to act. However my biggest fear is that the promises made to persuade Scots to vote ‘no’ will sink as other parties realise what they have committed to and seek to pull back from it.
We have to make these changes happen as if we don’t, parties like UKIP will thrive .
When I refer to “Regional assemblies” I mean the parliaments of Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland.
If Devo-Max, home rule and such-like are not ill-considered either and “our own redoubtable Menzies Campbell has produced two formidable reports”, how come the Liberal Democrats actually haven’t got a proposal for a new constitutional settlement as a policy for a General Election manifesto? It’s pathetic and it makes me wonder why I have been a party member for so long. We actually have nothing to show for all the decades of talk of reform, because we don’t seem to have taken the step of debating and adopting a preferred model to put to the electorate. And now, here we are, making hasty pledges on the back of a cigarette packet.
Watch out.
A lot of the present Tory hoo hah about ‘equality'(sic) is to do with English Votes for Inglish Laws (self-serving insurance for when they lose a British General Election) and to pump up the previously dying cause of ‘Elected Mayors’ for City Regions, which are utterly mad.
We should push for representative (STV) democracy in either Regions or expanded City Regions.
We’ll sure see a tug of war between the Tories and Labour about the English Votes for English Laws, based on what’s more expediaent for each party, not on principle. This can take a while, but the promises to the Scots must be delivered quickly, or else. And the LibDems must be firm on this, not least to alleviate the consequences of the tuition fee pledge fiasco.
Thanks to Paul Tyler for starting a reasoned debate; I have been wondering why there has been so little on constitutional reform in general on this website given that it is so basic to our party.
We should be banging on about this if only to help to counteract the loss public recognition we have endured through having to go through the necessary transition of coalition.
As an English member, I can see Paul’s argument about the role of Scottish MPs. It is a curious result of Scottish devolution that they cannot vote on matters dealt with by their own parliament. It is only as part of a federal system that they have any role at all!
The attempt to “regionalise” England was not taken up by local authorities when it was offered, so we can’t really go back there. And the idea of devolution to towns and cities would probably go the same way; some would take it, some would not, like police commissioners; this would not be a comprehensive solution for England .
This, for me, leaves an English Assembly matching the other members with matching powers, in a federal Great Britain.
LDV has a real problem with all these constitutional reform topics piling on top of each other. Proper discussion within them about any serious matter gets lost ‘off the page’. The individual contributions are all very good (especially this one) but they could just as easily be placed as ‘refreshers’ in the previous devolution/constitutional change thread which could then continue and bring different issues together.
Does LDV have the technology to do this?
pro-union supporters should be wary of creating second class MPs in Westminster – what do you pay them, should they hang around in London on ‘England’ days anyway in case of crisis, who arbitrates disputes etc. the ultimate question would be inevitably ‘why bother with this?’. The logic is complete reform of the apparatus of Union but alas we have the noxious self interest of politicians to counter.
Still, it can’t be hard to look at devolved/federal/confederal models or indeed other unions eg USA.
Our party has got itself in a terrible muddle about devolution. Let’s tackle the myth first.
The NE rejected devolution. It didn’t. The referendum was never about meaningful devolution, it was about a toothless talking shop with no power at all. I wouldn’t have voted for it. Those who claim this rules out regional government are talking nonsense.
Party policy as far back as the nineteenth century was home rule for Ireland to be followed by similar measures for Scotland and Wales. It evolved by the early 1970s into home rule for the nations and regions of England. We have fought every election in my 50 years in the party on this policy, if not explicitly in the manifesto then implicitly because it was party policy.
Politics is about taking and using power and in our system MPs are elected to take decisions that they think are in the best interests of the country. It’s not, IMO, about getting elected and then saying to people “well now what would you like us to do?”
Labour have supported some form of regional government as well and there is a real chance that we could agree with them on a new system of federal government. The tension will be our tendency to devolve versus their desire to centralise. Who knows, some Tories might like regional government too.
What is not acceptable – to me and I suspect many others in the party – is either an English Parliament or English MPs only voting on English Laws for the reasons already outlined by others in this thread.
We have to act now. Our current ‘devolution on demand’ policy is a recipe for muddle and obfuscation and will lead to a situation where no-one has a clue who does what or where. Can you imagine the media trying to work out or explain why Cornwall and Yorkshire have the same powers as Scotland, but the Midlands has no regional structure at all? If we don’t push for full federalism now then we will see Nick Clegg going along with Cameron’s knee jerk policy of an English grand committee – a policy that I was taught in school and university was a recipe for different classes of MP and unworkable at that.
I was going to leave a comment but I see that Dr Taylor has already said everything I want to, so I shall just endorse his comment 🙂
Mick Taylor’s comment should be printed out and nailed to the door of Nick Clegg’s office so that he has to see it frequently.
But it may already be too late. Cameron’s 7am statement yesterday was apparently made without any consultation with his Deputy, such is the declining influence of Nick Clegg.
The American model is not suitable for England’s regions. The first 13 American states started out as separate entities, first ceding some power to the US, which later simply grabbed more and more power (“The Consitution is over 200 years old, we can’t take it any more literally than the Old Testament”). It is very clear what the units are: states, then counties, all with their traditional powers, or whatever has remained of these.
England, on the other hand, has always been one (after the merger of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, which are now ancient history).
I completely agree with Mr Taylor about English MPs only voting on English Laws being unacceptable, but not sure about an English Parliament, for starters.
At any rate, the delivery of the pledge to Scotland must be quick, while the process of devolving England must be much longer and very careful. We can’t support tyoing them together in one time frame.
Couple of quick points
I think you underestimate the resentment for Westminster parties which now exists in the Yorkshire. This was evidenced by the huge support UKIP got in the EP elections in May (3 out of 6 seats in Y&H). The status quo is not an option. Nor is a solution imposed by ‘London’.
Secondly, I don’t understand why you have to have a one size fits all blueprint for England. Differential or asymmetric devolution has worked reasonably well in the UK thus far (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and London have different powers and responsibilities and if you think about it, it also exists at local council level; Leeds v Richmondshire/NYCC for example). It also works well in most other countries. So an assembly would work for Yorkshire and Cornwall; there might be city regions in Manchester and Birmingham and other parts might prefer the status quo. Vive la difference!
Oh Dear, only a few months to a General election and now the actions of three panicking politicians mean that I have got to get my shrivelled brain around things like the possibility of different classes of MPs and English only MPs voting on English laws. Are there many laws that can be divided in such a way?
When the politicians concerned made their vow, did they consult members of their party, or parliament – or even people like me! This just seems like another top- down whammy that has left people like myself reeling at the possible implications which we cannot compute.
Yorkshire Guidon, why do you imagine that assymetric devoluton has worked reasonably well in the UK so far? You might think that some regions would prefer the status quo whilst others (city regions, whatever) would like more power…so your solution is for some of us to remain second-class citizen, unempowered and run still from the grotesquely monolithic Westminster whilst others have their own powers? And what of the MPs who represent those cities, perhaps Manchester, which will have some devolved powers? You’re going to have to exclude them from votes which affect residents of rural Cambridgeshire who don’t have such devolved power, aren’t you? Or are you happy to create an internal version of the Westlothian Question within England? Yes, that’s really a good solution, hey?
“For England, one simple way to start, would be to return to local authorities all the power that have been taken from them over the last 40 years. ” [David Pollard (20th Sep ’14 – 10:21am)]
This would seem to be the best starting point I’ve seen suggested so far. It allows for the ready identification of (some) powers that could sit outside of Westminster, thereby providing tangible substance to the idea of devolution of powers, which can be communicated to voters. It also neatly separates the debate into: what powers should reside where and what are the organisations that should exist to exercise those powers and how should such organisations be constituted.
Without clarity over what powers we are talking about, we soon descend into debates that seem to revolve around the UK simply being a mini-EU.
English votes for English matters coupled with first past the post leaves the tories in charge, even though they don’t have the support to justify it. This is the very reason we have had to have devolution and the referendum. Our broken voting system leaves us with governments that don’t represent the social feeling of the people. No devolution to England without fair votes.
Of course the biggest measure which the coalition has taken is to centralise the provision of education in the hands of the secretary of state.
There are two separate but linked issues.
1. English votes for English laws, and
2. Devolution of powers within England.
English votes for English laws can be solved without devolving powers from Westminster. For example this could be achieved by restricting Scottish MPs from voting on English Bills.
Devolving powers from Westminster may not solve all the issues about EV4EL. For example, it would seem impractical to have different NHS organisation structures from one borough to the next when we can have GPs where we work rather than where we live and patients are frequently referred to specialist units outside the area where we live.
The Tories do not have a majority in Parliament, and as I doubt many other parties will support it, the main hope for EVFEL is if Nick Clegg backs it and pulls the Parliamentary Party with him. The tragedy of the Liberal Democrats is that nobody knows ahead of time what Nick will do.
@ Michael Kilpatrick So in your view one size does fit all? Rural Cambridgeshire and Greater Manchester?
In my view, the English Question can best be answered with an English Parliament that covers the country outside of the London Assembly’s mandate. I would prefer to have regional assemblies in a nice, symmetrical federation of Great Britain, but the English Parliament idea does not preclude further changes in future and as long as Greater London is able to govern itself on a large part of policy and spending, then we will avoid recreating the UKs City of London focussed government.
Its also simply the case that our world leading metropolis has different needs and priorities to our struggling regions and that policies beneficial to London tend actually to work against the regions.
If more of public spending were raised and controlled by London and England separately from eachother, we’d have the tools to sort out the truly ridiculous costs of living in London as well as the serious problems of deprivation and disconnection in the regions, without the interests of either side cancelling out and leaving us stuck with this stagnant mess we’re in.
The issue for Liberal Democrats is that other parties are out there setting out ideas while we’re still making excuses for coalition. The Scottish Referendum has changed everything, its a watershed moment and precedents that last week locked us into a programme of worthy but ultimately minor forgettable changes are now meaningless. We could yet use our position in government to do good and deliver something big.
and despite our raft of policy, and successive Manifesto statements, the BBC still managed to ignore us yesterday in their coverage of the potential for England .. they got Ukip on (of course) and even Plaid, but we were not even mentioned.
Should Scottish MPs and Cornish MPs get a vote on HS2 ?
Cornwall will certainly be contributing towards the cost because public transportation in England is paid for by English taxes.
Transport is devolved to Scotland. However, it can be argued that HS2 will partly be paid for by the VAT raised across the whole of the UK. So all MPs should get a vote.
Also whilst HS2 plans do not currently reach as far as Scotland, it has the potential to be extended to Scotland (but not Wales, NI or Cornwall).
HS2 is planned to be driven through the countryside, farms and homes of people in North Buckinghamshire, where they will not have the benefit of an HS2 station. However, the people of N. Buckinghamshire do not get a vote in the matter since their MP (the Speaker) is not able to vote or even debate the issue in parliament.
Anyone have a solution?
Yorkshire Guidon, of course I’m not suggesting a rural Cambs authority with powers equal to Greater Manchester. I don’t why you thought I was. I was highlighting how the Westlothian Question would become the Wythenshaw Question: an MP from Greater Manchester would be voting on matters that affect areas such as Cambs, Worcestershire and elsewhere but those policy areas would be devolved to Greater Manchester and his vote in the Commons would be as bad as a Scots MP voting on matters relating only to England. That will be the result of your piecemeal city devolution.
David, the obvious solution to the specific example you give (ie. HS2) is for Westminster to throw the HS2 legislation into the long grass and reallocate the time to debating the new UK, however from past experience, they will simply allocate the Scottish and constitutional debates to a few hours around friday midnight…
But going back to the substance of your observation, one of the telling things I’ve noticed is how urban centric people’s idea’s of regional government are. But you make a valid point: who gets to decide: the taxpayer or the tax spender/beneficiaries. Particularly when, with expensive projects like HS2, many projects with a more rational benefits case will not happen in Cornwall, Wales, East Anglian etc.
@davidevershed
I am never clear why people like you always frame the issue in term of unionist Scottish MPs (SNP MPs already don’t) voting on English issues an totally ignore that Welsh and Northern Irish MPs can a well.
Roland makes a good point of urban-centric ideas, as typified by Nick Cleggs thoughts on special city powers. Large transport infrastructure and other developments are needed to sustain communities which comprise smaller towns and cities too, not just the large urban conglomerates, you know! We all need and deserve an equal slice of the cake in that respect. Where national governments fail to deliver a certain project in a certain region because they have prioritised another project elsewhere (be that HS2, a motorway, etc) it should be within the powers of regions to take it upon themselves to undertake such projects if they believe the costs and benefits warrant it. Such things require tax and spend powers of sufficient gravity but then that conflicts with the desire to make control as local as possible, doesn’t it? In answer to that it seems abundantly clear that the UK, or England, are simply too large – there is no localism at all. But most district or counties are far too small for major projects, many of which might span a couple of counties. If the UK Government don’t want to spend money on an upgraded freight route from the east coast ports to central England, then Suffolk County Council clearly can’t do that themselves. However, an Eastern England regional parliament probably could. It just seems inherently obvious that 8 or 10 English regions creates a better localism whilst retaining sufficient financial clout for significal projects. Not only that, the result is populations of similar size to Scotland (excluding the smaller Wales and NI).
@ David Evershed
Your post describes exactly the nexus of UK interests inherent in any bill and the difficulties attendant on finding an irrefutable justification for identifying any UK issue as exclusively “English”. Cameron should have engaged his brain before opening his mouth. But then, of course, his only interest is in minimising or nullifying Labour’s vote at the next General election, not in the real interests of the people of the UK.
It seems to me that the only solution to the mess that has been created is to establish a separate English Parliament that enjoys the same devolved powers as the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies. Members of this English Parliament would be elected in separate elections held only in England and The House of Commons could be abolished and become the chamber for the English Parliament. In addition the House of Lords should be completely abolished and replaced by the UK Federal Parliament. Bills that were deemed to contain elements of UK Federal interest, no matter how small, would have to be considered by the Federal Parliament and voted on by all federal MPs. The alternative, the suggestion that only English MPs should vote on English Bills is unworkable for the reasons given by myself and others above. It would create two tiers of MPs, many of whom, because they weren’t English, would become political eunuchs, unable to exercise power either in the House of Commons or in their own country’s assembly. Furthermore, apart from the problem of devising appropriate criteria for determining what would be an exclusively, concomitant-free English matter, there is also the problem of who should have the power of determining whether a bill was an “English” bill. Who would this be? Parliamentary draftsmen? The government? Would it be determined by a vote of all MPs?
Ed Miliband is absolutely right to demand that constitutional reform on this scale and complexity be given the appropriate time for debate and consideration; and his statesmanlike response should be contrasted with Farage and Cameron’s cynical call for English votes for English MPs. This is simply dog whistle politics that will only will lead us into the constitutional equivalent of the Dangerous Dogs Act.
As I understand it Cameron is suggesting a minimal solution, something like an English Grand Commitee of all the English MPs that would meet when required; that sounds perfectly acceptable to me. Or we could just reduce the number of Scots MPs ?
On a Convention I was envisaging a networks of Conventions meeting all over England & Wales. Undoubtedly any new bodies they came up with would produce a messy patchwork, a real Postcode Lottery. Hurrah ! Whats the point of Local unless its different ?
Not surprised that paul barker likes a Tory idea – no matter how bad
The UK Parliament sits in Westminster and all MPs elected to it should vote on legislation put before it – that is its role. The WLQ is irrelevant in context of the UK Parliament. It is just that the UK Parliament has to deal with English matters as well because no-one has worked hard enough in finding an alternative
It is not the fault of Scottish MPs that the English cannot make up their minds what they want – and where is Cameron’s mandate to perform this major change to the constitution?
The aim of Cameron is to try and form a Tory-dominated English Parliament in perpetuity (a bit hubristic to assume this)
There should be a Constitutional Convention that should publish details by 2020 followed by referendum and elections early in the following Parliament. These ideally should have also looked at the Scottish, Welsh and Irish devolution as well to try and harmonise as much as possible
You could try and do it before but what do the English think about devolution as no-one has asked them, and Cameron represents a party of rural and suburban England. No, or very little, representation in the big urban areas. The way of making it work will take time and be very carefully thought through. Just because it is difficult doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen though
All the devolved Parliaments have been supported by a referendum – why are the English not allowed to have their say?
Many opinions seem illogical to me. Save the Union then undermine the UK Parliament by making it, in effect, an English Parliament……
The problem of English votes for English matters, and that of defining ‘English matters’, is solved by creating a Parliament for England with powers, influence and responsibilities that match the Scottish one. And beefing up the Welsh and London Assemblies to match.
The problem of the proliferation of politicians (what a sentence…) is solved by trading in the Commons for this English Parliament, and then using elected members of a replacement for the Lords to be the Parliament that covers UK wide issues and controls the spending still reserved for central government. Which I would have at around half, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.
@Tony Dawson 20th Sep ’14 – 11:14am
LDV has a real problem with all these constitutional reform topics piling on top of each other. Proper discussion within them about any serious matter gets lost ‘off the page’.
Couldn’t agree more Tony. A real mess.
T-J. No, you’ve got it all wrong, sorry. The problem of the proliferation of politicians is not solved by trading in the Commons for an English Parliament.
It is solved by creating regional parliaments which all have uniform devolution of powers, matching Scotland’s powers, and then making all local authorities unitary, as they currently are in Scotland. I have always found it absurd and offensive that planning is dealt with by South Cambs District Council whilst transport and roads are dealt with by Cambridgeshire County. What an absurd division of developmental powers.
Removing the counties from the administrative tier whilst introducing 8 or 10 English regional parliaments will result in a massive reduction of politicians. Furthermore, given that the House of Commons will have a significant reduction in its powers of the minutiae of our lives, the reforms of regions and local authorites can be accompanied by the reduction in size of the Commons from 650 to something like 400 or 450.
@ T-J
I think you and I are broadly of the same mind on this.
Peter Tyzack, remember Nick is the minister responsible for “leading the government’s political and constitutional reform agenda.” But as soon as there is something important to say, David Cameron says it. I think that says it all.
@Michael Kilpatrick
Well, I’ve only ever lived in areas with unitary authorities, first Peterborough and now Scotland. Obviously, the majority of English local governments should be reformed to match, the situation you describe is clearly absurd yes.
Regarding regional assemblies, that would be my preferred choice, but its also the choice that has the obvious comeback of 2004 in the North East. And it faces the problem that although it is the neatest solution most appealing to constitutional thinkers, it lacks any real groundswell of support in most of the rest of the country.
Hopefully, an English Parliament isn’t necessarily the end of the process and if support then appears in say Yorkshire or Cornwall for a separate devolution under the UK but outside of the English Parliament, that could get sorted. But it does seem to be the option most likely to succeed, other than the miserable compromise of a Grand Committee of MPs.
Which is just a minefield and must be opposed as an inadequate response to the question. And I’ll not be taking odds on how long until some government overlooks that solution to grab a majority in the event of an anticipated rebellion or whatever.
@Michael Kilpatrick
What I really want is a directly elected, accountable, transparent assembly for Yorkshire with significant powers to make a difference to people’s lives, their economy and environment. I was just offering a suggestion of a way forward. I have no problem with an Eastern Assembly – just promise me you have started the campaign for one and that you can deliver it 🙂
@ Mack
” Cameron’s proposals would create a number of second class Westminster MPs”
Aw Diddums!!
On one side of the balance we have 53 million English second class citizens in the United Kingdom, and on the other side of the balance we have 100 assorted LibDem, Labour and nationalist MP’s who want their cake and to eat it too.
Trust the LibDems to come down on the side of an undeserving minority at the expense of the majority
I don’t suppose this view has anything to do with 25% (14) of LibDem MP’s being in that 100.
@Raddiy
I am not a. Lib Dem. but a life long member of the Labour Part. From your comments I assume that you are not in favour of representative democracy.
@radilly
You seem to be forgetting the 550 MPs representing English constituencies.
@ Raddiy
Are you sure you mena Libdems, rather than Labour?
I am not a Lib Dem. From your remarks can I assume you are not a fan of representative democracy?.
Yorkshire Guidon, as someone brought up in Yorkshire (in Sheffield Hallam, to be more precise) I would equally love to see a directly elected and accountably body for Yorkshire or the whole of the north. Whatever happens, if we end up with a bodged pseudo-English-parliament as a halfway measure first, there will be far too much pressure from the Tories to accept that as a perfectly adequate solution. Further regional devolution would be killed off. Yes, I would love to campaign for regional English parliaments and I’ll write letters to every politician I can think of to garner support for the notion. If we don’t get it right now, it’ll be lost for another generation.
Just my 2 cents
First yes we must with haste give Scotland a fair deal
Second how many voters do you think in England will be happy if party need is put before the electorate I don’t care who is in power I care that they act in a fair and honourable fashion
Big pay rise 2015
Expenses
Prison for some
Not following pledge promises
Backing policy then changing mind
Disparity between the highest and lowest paid
No increase in minimum wage yet alone living wage
A pension statement of flat rate that was at best misleading if not a lie
A bank governor who thinks that with EU workers arriving by the thousands wages will increase
Health service where it takes 2-4 weeks for a gp appointment want faster go to A&E
Little regard of electorate in wars Iraq
No say in Nuclear weapons
Facing a real threat of power cuts because successive governments have failed to build
No small cheap acomadmadation
Indeed repent at leisure I as an English voter will be angry if the three main parties stomp on Scotland and the same is true for England Wales & Ireland get a grip for goodness sake
Wtrh people commuting greater distances and being generally more mobile, the need for forums to deal with regional matters, is increasing, not decreasing. In addition, where county/metropolitan councils have been abolished and only unitary authorities remain, it is doubtful that the mechanism exists to deal adequately with inter-community matters .
On a more philosophical level,, communities need to feel that they are represented in the determination of regional matters.
The last thing, which we need, is a hotchpotch of levels of devolution.
We’ve heard from Cameron, Milliband, Farage, and Bennett on the proposed Constitutional convention or English votes for english laws. I haven’t seen anything yet from the DPM with special responsibility for constitutional matters. I’m pretty sure there wasn’t anything in the Coalition agreement about the West Lothian question, but if I had responsibility for the constitution, I’d be more than cross about the PM announcing a major consititutional change without consulting me.
English votes for English laws could be interpreted as a reason for an English Parliament located outside Westminster , in a completely different part of the country and the Westminster Parliament legislating only on those matters which affect the UK as a whole. Decide what those matters are and then devolve the rest.
However, I have just become caught up in an argument that I fear will occupy the Lib Dems until the next election because we are the only party that is truly passionate about devolution. Can we please please please concentrate on the factors which led so many Scots to vote yes and that is poverty and long term unemployment. People needing Benefits see us as part of a cruel regime and we need to set out how we can provide the vulnerable with the means to live which in my view has to involve the wealthy paying higher taxes, perhaps as a temporary measure ( we’re all in it together )?
Sue S
It seems to me the long term answer to poverty is to teach a person to fish for themselves rather than feed them fish.
Coalition moves to improve education standards (particularly for white working class kids), apprenticeships, repairing the government finances and economic growth policies generally are all moves in the right direction.
Increasing the incentive for the unemployed to help themselves by seeking retraining and to look for work through changes to the welfare system are also necessary tough love policies.