English Devolution

[bpoolrover]

It's not just Cameron rushing things Gordon brown set out deadlines I presume millaband had something to do with that

[BillyStubbsTears]

BPool

Brown set out the deadline for SCOTTISH devolution. It was Brown who did it because none of the Westminster leaders would have been trusted in Scotland. But Cameron, Miliband and Clegg signed pledges that they would honour this timetable.

Cameron has then made the unilateral decision that the Scottish devolution timetable must be linked to an English one. There is NO reason for this except that he is trying to force through a deal (decided in secret by William Hague) that would massively and unfairly benefit the Tories.

There is no reason at all why the English devolution issue can't be finalised after the Election, and after a detailed nation-wide discussion and English referendum.

[bpoolrover]

Ah thank you for that, I try and keep upto date but it's not that easy

[bpoolrover]

From what I think I understand thou,if Scotland mps could not vote on English matters would labour ever have any powers?

[IC1967]

From what I think I understand thou,if Scotland mps could not vote on English matters would labour ever have any powers?

You've hit the nail on the head. Labour want to delay things as long as possible (kick English devolution into the long grass and hope we all forget about it) because they rely on foreign MP's to get their legislation through. They don't care that Scottish MP's vote through English legislation when English MP's can't vote on Scottish legislation. Totally unfair.

There is nothing to stop Labour agreeing that English MP's should only be allowed to vote on English matters. This could happen within days. All it takes is for an agreement that foreign MP's won't vote on English legislation anymore. The rest of the devolution set up could then take as long as is needed because the main problem will have been solved.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Bpool

It depends on whether Labour had a majority in England (which they have had on several occasions).

The issue is like this.

 I have no problem at all with us having a separate Parliament for England. If that has a majority of Tory representatives, so be it.

BUT. That has to  e a totally separate body from the UK Parliament. Cameron's proposal (that Scottish, Welsh and NI MPs are simy stopped from voting on English issues is a recipe for continual crisis. Here's why.

Imagine Labour win the next Election by 10 seats. But that majority is based on having, say 40 MPs from Scotland. So, when Westminster votes on English issues, the Tories have a majority.

Now, the Health Secretary in this Labour Govt would be, say, Andy Burnham. But when he tried to pass legislation on ENGLISH matters do do with the NHS, the Tory majority of ENGLISH MPs would veto it. And when the Tory majority of English MPs wanted to enact a piece of legislation, they would find that the Labour Chancellor would refuse to release funds for it.

There's a crucial point here. Democracy works ONLY if you can identify people who are responsible for successes or failures, and vote for or against them next time. In the situation I paint above, who would be responsible for short comings in the English NHS? The Labour Health Secretary? Or the Tory majority if English MPs.

It is a catastrophically bad proposal because it would make political authority and responsibility even vaguer than it currently is.

The solution is really quite obvious. Instead of this stupid idea of having an English Parliament made from the UK Parliament minus Scottish, Irish and Welsh MPs, what you do is to have a separately elected devolved English Parliament, with clearly set out powers and responsibilities. So there would be an English Health Secretary, directly answerable to the UK national one. This is exactly the situation that Scotland, Wales and NI have. My take is that that would work in principle, but in practice it would be silly to have the Scot/Wales/NI assemblies representing 2-6 million people and an English one representing 60 million. That is a daft imbalance. Far better, instead of having a single English Parliament, to devolve powers out to 8-10 regional English assemblies. So we in Yorkshire could set our own budgets, raise our own taxes, make our own health policies and decide our own transport policy.

That is democracy on action. If anyone objects to that, ask them why.

[turnbull for england]

Billy, the circumstances you describe are basically what happened under the previous mayor of Doncaster,   basically the cabinet made of  the opposition vetoed his ideas and vice versa  so it was extremely hard to get anything done resulting in impasse.I'm no politician but that cannot be allowed to happen on a national scale or only the weakest watered down policies will survive and that will suit no-one   

[BillyStubbsTears]

TFE

Precisely. But there's a twist to what Cameron is proposing. In practice, it would only ever be a LABOUR PM that would be hobbled like this. It's almost impossible to imagine a scenario where a Tory PM could be affected, because it's practically impossible for the Tories to win in the UK without clearly winning in England.

So the practical outcome if what Cameron is proposing is that Labour Govts would be hamstrung but Tory Govts would have a clear run.

You have to admire the brass neck of this proposal. It is nakedly undemocratic  and aimed at giving the Tories an enormous advantage in perpetuity. It has Osborne's grubby little fingerprints all over it.

And it has zero chance of getting into law, unless Clegg caves in again and supports it.

[IC1967]

Why on earth should Labour be able to enact legislation in England if the majority of English MP's oppose it? It's not fair that they can do it with the support of foreign MPs. If the Tories have an advantage in England then so be it. That's democracy for you. It certainly isn't democracy letting Labour do as they please with the support of foreign MPS that are not affected by the legislation they pass.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

BFYP
BFYP. I'm sure you'll hear that line about our regions being too small trotted out. Mainly by people who are either innumerate, or who think that everyone else is, so they can pull the wool over their eyes. But I thought you dealt with numbers professionally. So you don't have an excuse for getting it so badly wrong.

Population of USA in 2010 census: 308million
Number of States in USA: 50
Average population per state: 6.16million

Median population per state: 4.5million

Smallest state population: Wyoming - 582,000

Population of England in 2011 census 58million

Population of England by region:
South East: 8.6million
Greater London 8.2millon
North West: 7.0million
East: 5.8million
West Mids: 5.6million
South West: 5.3million
Yorks&Humber: 5.3million
East Mids:4.5million
North East: 2.6million

So that's that one put to bed. In fact, when you look at those numbers, it is an obscenity that we don't have strong devolved local politics which allows regional groups if that size to make local decisions on things like transport and taxes. There are very few developed countries where a population of 60million has no sub-level of strong democratic decision making below the full national one, like most of England (outside London) does.

I spent time living in the states and you just cannot compare the two based on the feel I got.  That's a perception, rather than fact, it's completely different.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Adding further to that, it's arguable that there has never been a necessity for two lots of politicians in Scotland and Wales also.  So why not use the same ones?

Ergo surely the way around that funding issue you discussed BST would be to devolve the cash as one lump sum and then let the English MPs make the decisions on how that is spent.  In essence then the chancellor would have very little power and it would be a devolved finance minister that makes the decisions - in essence just like in Scotland.  The only difference would be not having a seperate body of politicians.  Because even if there was a seperate body, the situation you described would be the same if this format wasn't adopted, thus in essence it is largely pointless.

Equally, if power to English health was devolved then why even have a UK health secretary as each country would control its own area?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP
You stated that US states are the size of our country. That is factually incorrect. It's got bugger all to do with perceptions or whether you have lived there.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Is it all about population, what about the size of the place?  Equally are you really saying that the NE of England could be compared to Texas in terms of being able to self govern?  A lot of the states are vastly different, does the NE and Yorkshire really need to seperate?  I would suggest not.  Afterall the size of the NE in population terms is vastly lower than your median or average in the states isn't it?

[wilts rover]

Why on earth should Labour be able to enact legislation in England if the majority of English MP's oppose it? It's not fair that they can do it with the support of foreign MPs. If the Tories have an advantage in England then so be it. That's democracy for you. It certainly isn't democracy letting Labour do as they please with the support of foreign MPS that are not affected by the legislation they pass.

For the same reason that one idiot can keep putting up bonkers ideas on this forum when the majority are against them - its called democracy. As most Tory MP's are in the Home Counties, why should people in places like Doncaster have policies dictated to them by a southern elite?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

I take your point about physical area rather than population, although I'm not sure what that has to do with the need for regional Govt. Switzerland and Netherlands are smaller countries by far (by area) than the UK and both have far more regionally devolved power. Germany is a bit bigger than us both by area and by population and it has far more regionally devolved powers. USA is far bigger than us by area and population and it has far more regionally devolved powers.

You see the theme?

We (England) are one of the most highly centralised countries on earth. There is no meaningful level of decision making between me as an individual, and the Secretaries of State in Whitehall. There are very few democratic states on earth where a group of 60million people don't have some meaningful sub-division of political representation.

As for whether Y&H and NE should be lumped together, you're talking detail. I'd be perfectly happy for them to have a single regional authority or separate ones. It's the principle that's the key issue. The list of regions I gave before are, generally, about the size of somewhere like New Jersey or Connecticut both in area and in population.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

PS

You choose the smallest value in a list, then say that because it is  much smaller than the average and median of another list, that means that the two lists are not comparable.

You want to have a think about the logic of that approach?

[bpoolrover]

It's hard work this knowing what is right,thank you for your reply billy. I took what you said on board the ici complicated things again lol

[BillyStubbsTears]

BPool

It's one of the most important decisions that we will ever make. And it's f**king complicated.  That is why I am so livid that Cameron is trying to ram through a disgracefully undemocratic answer.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I clearly did use the smallest for the reason that it is going to cost to make it that regional. It's too much.

How is it not democratic? It would be clearly elected. Scottish mps voting on English issues is undemocratic.

What's milliband's suggestion? Oh he doesn't have one by the looks of it.  Let's be honest the left are scared that it hampers them. And it does.  But where do you draw the line? Scotland claims it didn't vote for this government but equally, nether did England.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

They have states in the USA with populations if 500k. They have their own Governors and State Legislatures. Do they cost too much? Should they merge all states with less than an ideal number of people?

The cost issue is a red herring that is put up by people who have a very vested interest in seeing a particular solution adopted. It's about democracy and about making the country work. If it cost a billion quid a year to have regional assemblies, that would be a drop in the ocean, and would pay itself back many times over if the country was run more efficiently.

I have explained why the English MPs only voting all be an affront to democracy. I accept that we can't continue with the status quo, because that too is an affront to democracy. You say Miliband has no solution and wants to keep the status quo.  That is very unfair. He has proposed that we immediately set up a nationwide, multi-party constitutional convention to research what the fairest and most sensible approach should be, and that a decision should be made within a year. How can that be worse than Cameron's plans which appear to involve the Tory grandees meeting in secret today at Chequers to decide what is good for us.

[The Red Baron]

BPool

It's one of the most important decisions that we will ever make. And it's f***ing complicated.  That is why I am so livid that Cameron is trying to ram through a disgracefully undemocratic answer.

Surely he can't ram anything through as he doesn't have a Commons majority. All today's meeting was about was agreeing a position that can be taken into next year's general election as Conservative party policy.

Miliband may be sincere about wanting to set up a commission to look into the best solution, but that has the danger of being viewed as trying to kick the issue into the long grass.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB

He can if he can get Clegg on board. And of course, he's going to play the "Labour are blocking this" card if he doesn't get this into law before the GE.

Posturing and politicking. Shit int it?

[IC1967]

Bpool, ignore Billy. He is from the hard left and he doesn't care a jot about foreign MP's passing legislation when their own countries do the complete opposite and to cap it all, English MP's find they can't vote on anything that has been devolved to the foreign MP's parliaments. It's very simple. The Tories want English MP's to vote on English only matters. Billy couldn't care less who votes for English legislation as long as his leftie agenda is foisted on the country.

[BillyStubbsTears]

TRB
PS. It's not just Milibabd calling for a constitutional convention. UKIP, LD and the Greens have also backed that idea. It's Cameron's Cabinet against the lot.

Mind, I accept that the idea of the LDs backing anything is a bad joke. Clegg has some brass neck, publicly signing a pledge to support Scottish Devo Max

[IC1967]

Being economical with the truth again. Nigel Farage has written to all Scottish MP's asking them not to take part in votes and debates in the Commons which have no impact on Scotland. He wants immediate action, not after some constitutional convention that would take years.

Nigel wants the voluntary abstaining policy to last until a “wider constitutional settlement” is agreed upon so “the Scottish tail can’t continue wagging the English dog any longer”.

In a letter to the MPs he said: “Until this consensus is reached, there is the urgent need for Scottish MPs not to determine legislation on devolved matters in England.

"We are at a constitutional crossroads. Resolving the complex issues may take years.

“In the meantime, I am calling on all Scottish MPs to make a written commitment to abstain from debating or voting on all English matters at Westminster which, if they had related to Scotland rather than England, would fall within the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament.”

And he said an English Parliament could be easily created in the House of Commons, with certain days set aside for legislation and debates which affect only England.

Mr Farage claimed the needs and wishes of English residents have been continuously ignored by Westminster.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/512954/Scottish-MPs-fury-at-Farage-demand

[IC1967]

I Have yet to see a politician that doesn't get corrupted by ''The Gravy Train'' once they have moved up the ladder,they start off locally you think He/She seems to have the best interests at heart of who they represent.
They start off living in the village they represent,then all of a sudden they move to an affluent area,half a million house,big flash car,and this is just local representatives.

All of a sudden they become aloof,hard to find when something needs doing,and then it's ''It's not my Department'',then their relations get building contracts for any housing being built.
Meanwhile no money gets spent on the local area apart from token efforts,and grandiose embellishments on buildings that don't need doing,the roads are full of pot holes,that have been cheaply repaired,and bust open when the temperatures rise and fall.

Then you have the main government,they get a pay rise then it all goes quiet,they mention something like the unemployed,foreign people scrounging,nobody notices that Cameron etc's wages have gone up and the hard working supermarket workers hasn't.
The Conservatives spout that the unemployment figures have gone down,yes they might have done because they have forced people who are ill or just can't find a job into Zero hour contract jobs,or minimum wage jobs,that haven't risen with inflation.
To me we are being governed by Silver spoon Rich boys who have never experienced proper life,they have come from moneyed backgrounds straight into government,generation after generation of their families have had the money and opportunities and so it carries on.

Their influence even extends to family members having jobs involved with broadcasting,every job you can mention it's all sewn up.
This country will not benefit from any of the Parties being in power,the majority are corrupt and it will never change.
They are supposed to Represent us,they Represent themselves,the only time they are interested in us,is when they want our vote.

Oh dear. You are obviously a glass half empty sort of person. Luckily for everyone else I am a glass half full sort of person.

There are plenty of politicians that are in it for the right reasons. For example, have you heard of Dennis Skinner? He may be a misguided leftie, but he is a man of principle.

What about Nigel Farage? He is a man of the people and has been courageous in advocating an exit from the EU. What about daniel Hannan? I could go on.

As in all walks of life there are career politicians who are just in it for themselves. You just have to look at the Labour councils in S. Yorkshire. However there are many politicians from all parties that are in it for all the right reasons. That is a fact.