Wouldnt it be cheaper to simply ban them from voting in the Parliament we already have?
It won't work because they will always claim that, whatever the legislation, it affects them because of funding. So they will demand the right to vote. Separate parliaments remove that ability. Just abolish the Lords to fund an English parliament.
Wouldnt it be cheaper to simply ban them from voting in the Parliament we already have?
That's the Conservative backbenchers plan. Actually technically speaking English only MP's sitting in the Commons debating and voting on English legislation is an English parliament.
It won't work because they will always claim that, whatever the legislation, it affects them because of funding. So they will demand the right to vote. Separate parliaments remove that ability. Just abolish the Lords to fund an English parliament.
I would make the commons the English parliament and the Lords the federal UK parliament. Great excuse to get rid of the Lord's as well.
The Lords could be a sort of senate that deals with signing foreign treaties, going to war, representing constituents etc.
The big problem is what happens if Labour get the most votes / seats in the UK and the Conservatives get the most votes / seats in England. We could have an English first minister and UK prime minister. The problem is will anyone want to go in to politics and fight elections just to be in charge of foreign and defence issues, while someone else does education, health, immigration etc.?
It would prevent non English MP's voting on English only legislation.
And do you think that will change what the poltical parties want to do? It might in some cases but not by much and say if they gave free tuition fees/free prescriptions in England, its bound to be at a cost of other services being cut or other taxes going up.
And do you think that will change what the poltical parties want to do? It might in some cases but not by much and say if they gave free tuition fees/free prescriptions in England, its bound to be at a cost of other services being cut or other taxes going up.
Its the principle. Progressive parties are always banging on about fairness. Well Scottish MP's voting on legislation that affects only England is not fair, when English MP's can not vote on their legislation.
Its the principle. Progressive parties are always banging on about fairness. Well Scottish MP's voting on legislation that affects only England is not fair, when English MP's can not vote on their legislation.
The cost of this principle that you hold so dear would mean yet another layer of Government which would cost a fair bit and is unnecessary.
The fact that England gets the lion share of most things means that people should not object to what other countries of the UK get as they are being cut short imo, esp Scotland. Scotland seems to put in a lot more than what they get back.
p.s. An English parliament could cause more troubles than its worth too. It could cause power struglles between who should rule the roost, the leader of the "Federal Parliament" or the leader of the biggest party in an English Parliament. Some people might say the way round that would be for the party leaders to try and get elected to both places but what if they can't for one reason or another or if their federal seat is a non english seat in the first place?
The big problem is what happens if Labour get the most votes / seats in the UK and the Conservatives get the most votes / seats in England. We could have an English first minister and UK prime minister. The problem is will anyone want to go in to politics and fight elections just to be in charge of foreign and defence issues, while someone else does education, health, immigration etc.?
Doesn't seem to have stopped Obama or Angela Merkel from going for the top job in their federal countries!
p.s. An English parliament could cause more troubles than its worth too. It could cause power struglles between who should rule the roost, the leader of the "Federal Parliament" or the leader of the biggest party in an English Parliament.
Shouldn't be a problem. The UK PM would be in charge of the UK as a whole (defence, foreign affairs, immigration etc), while the First Minister of England would be in charge of English-only matters (health, education, transport etc). Of course it could mean that the English FM gets more media coverage than the PM!
Shouldn't be a problem. The UK PM would be in charge of the UK as a whole (defence, foreign affairs, immigration etc), while the First Minister of England would be in charge of English-only matters (health, education, transport etc). Of course it could mean that the English FM gets more media coverage than the PM!
If the jobs are held by different people, I think there is a high chance it would lead to power struggles and will lead to a complete break up of the UK at some point. England would be alright on the whole if the UK breaks up, Wales might be able to hold their own to an extent but would struggle I think as for Northern Ireland, would go back to Ireland? I wonder what the unionists would do?
Doesn't seem to have stopped Obama or Angela Merkel from going for the top job in their federal countries!
President Obama famously put bills before congress such as healthcare or Obamacare. A UK PM would not be able to do that. Imagine vote for me and I will makes sure we err have enough tanks and sign some treaties. That will get the electorate excited and voting.
Shouldn't be a problem. The UK PM would be in charge of the UK as a whole (defence, foreign affairs, immigration etc), while the First Minister of England would be in charge of English-only matters (health, education, transport etc). Of course it could mean that the English FM gets more media coverage than the PM!
Immigration will be devolved. It's obvious that some countries want more and some want less.
I have a horrible feeling that we as a nation are getting in to a constitutional situation that is not going to work. Saying that, having looked at what's on offer from Westminster if they vote no, its a rubbish package compared to independence and may not require federalism.
What might work is a directly elected UK president to deal with foreign affairs and defending the nation, but we have a monarch as head of state already.
The EU style solution of a rotating PM job between the four first ministers might work as well.
The northern Ireland option may work. As England is the biggest country it's first minster always gets the UK PM job as well. Scotland gets the foreign secretary job, Wales the EU commissioner and Northern Ireland the UN ambassador or something like that. All four parliaments would need to ratify any treaties or could decide to sign individually.
Getting rid of UK MP's and parliament would save money and answer the complaints about another tier of government. It would also mean two different parties would not be elected for first minister and PM.
It won't work because they will always claim that, whatever the legislation, it affects them because of funding. So they will demand the right to vote. Separate parliaments remove that ability. Just abolish the Lords to fund an English parliament.
Well if all MP's voted on the budget or the fixed allocation of money to each department, then everything that happens after that would only concern English MP's.
So if the education budget over the next year has been approved by all MP's as two billion, how that money was spent and the curriculum etc. would be a matter only for English MP's.
Of course the Scot's are being offered tax raising powers, so if the English must have them too. In which case they will not need to involve non English MP's if they provide the money as well.
I think the biggest issue is not that but what happens if Labour get the most seat in the UK, but the Conservatives get the most seats in England. If Ed Milband is PM, but any health or education policies he comes up with are voted down by a Conservative majority English parliament, we have a constitutional problem.
On the other hand carrying on as we are now with England being treated unfairly is unacceptable.
Well I am completely confused now, I thought Scotland was a country, Wales was a country and so was Ireland, whether split or not. England as far as I know is a country, and features on the world list of countries.
So WHERE does it say that as a country Scotland, Wales, Ireland North, are allowed to have an assembly, parliament or whatever they want to call it to govern their country, but England cannot???
Sorry, I didn't mean to get into a debate about what it means to be English in general. I was specifically talking about regional government.
It would make absolutely no sense to have a regional government for England as England itself is a nation state of multiple regions - or it would be if it existed as a separate entity (which it hasn't for over 800 years). Of course Scotland and Wales aren't homogeneous, but they are small enough and have a strong enough culture for it to make sense to see them as a single region. The same way that the states in the US or Germany are single regions, or that the areas that used to be separate kingdoms in Italy are separate regions.
Now England could obviously easily exist as a nation state if it wanted too. But it could not exist as a political region within the UK, that would be ridiculous. It would be like saying that the 13 original colonies in the US should get together and form one state - it wouldn't work as their populations interests are too different and it would imbalance the entire union. Having England as a separate region would essentially mean the creation of an English empire as any nation state it was part of would be ridiculously one sided.
Ok, I apologise for my previous post. I thought you were implying England had no identity. As it happens I agree with you that due to our size compared to the rest of the UK it would make sense to devolve the same power to the English regions that's already been given to Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. If that's your reason for favouring regional devolution then I've got no issue with it.
I think the biggest issue is not that but what happens if Labour get the most seat in the UK, but the Conservatives get the most seats in England. If Ed Milband is PM, but any health or education policies he comes up with are voted down by a Conservative majority English parliament, we have a constitutional problem.
Don't see that as a problem. Elections to an English parliament would be the same as to the Scottish one. If Milliband was standing for the UK Parliament, he wouldn't be standing on health and education issues because those matters would be devolve to the national parliaments.
What would an English Parliament achieve that Westminster doesn't?
The distribution of wealth, services and resources across all English counties instead of the bulk going to London. All English counties being treated one and the same, and not giving London preferential treatment over other counties, perhaps?
The distribution of wealth, services and resources across all English counties instead of the bulk going to London. All English counties being treated one and the same, and not giving London preferential treatment over other counties, perhaps?
How do you know that would happen? I doubt it would at all. If anything an indpendent England would just see London becoming even more expensive to live in as would the surrounding home counties.
Well I am completely confused now, I thought Scotland was a country, Wales was a country and so was Ireland, whether split or not. England as far as I know is a country, and features on the world list of countries.
So WHERE does it say that as a country Scotland, Wales, Ireland North, are allowed to have an assembly, parliament or whatever they want to call it to govern their country, but England cannot???
An English parliament will not do anything that Westminster doesn't do already! It will mean more layers of Government more politicians, more expenses and power struggles and thats worth it because you feel left out?
Why don't you look at why Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland got their devolved powers instead of thinking England has been left out. Westminster is in London. It makes decisions for the UK but especially England and Wales. It was never right to run Scotland from a small Scottish department in London. People in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland know their countries better than what London does and before you say the same about England, again, Westminster is in London, not in Edinburgh, Cardif or Belfast.
How do you know that would happen? I doubt it would at all. If anything an indpendent England would just see London becoming even more expensive to live in as would the surrounding home counties.
I'm not saying it WILL happen but it could be a possibility.
I'm not saying it WILL happen but it could be a possibility.
With the Parliament at Westminster (not the devolved assmeblies though) taking so many recesses that amounts to 6-7 months off a year, I doubt very much that they will get round to loosening their grips on power let alone even look at ammending the laws needed to make such things happen.
I thought we could use what we have. I also think there is every need for an English Parliament which gives a clear understanding that if it is a matter for the English then only the English MPs vote, just like the other parliaments.
Logically yes. Because Scots would be able to vote on issues that didn't concern them - ike income tax in the rest of the UK - but English MPs couldn't on Scottish income tax. .
But practicality intervenes. if you have a Milliband government of the UK - on a majority that comes from Welsh and Scottish seats - but a Conservative majority in England, who governs? Can Milliband declare war, and do not much else? Can you have a UK chancellor who doesn't control spending, or overall taxation levels, and has no control over measures for growth, or regional policy, or national infrastructure, or education?
There's also accountability. Who is to blame for failures - when national and UK parliaments and ministers will just blame each other? Who can promise what - if the finance for policy, and the execution of policy are split between different governments? Its a recipe for log jam (as in the US) and voter anger. If you go further, and give regions more say too, things get worse, There's then even less accountability, rows break out between regions, and the regions themselves will end up representing wherever most of their voters live - at the expense of both smaller communities and the nation.
Comments
It would prevent non English MP's voting on English only legislation.
Wouldnt it be cheaper to simply ban them from voting in the Parliament we already have?
The Scots don't think so! It's not overkill because the Parliaments would have different functions. The UK one could be reduced considerably.
It won't work because they will always claim that, whatever the legislation, it affects them because of funding. So they will demand the right to vote. Separate parliaments remove that ability. Just abolish the Lords to fund an English parliament.
That's the Conservative backbenchers plan. Actually technically speaking English only MP's sitting in the Commons debating and voting on English legislation is an English parliament.
I would make the commons the English parliament and the Lords the federal UK parliament. Great excuse to get rid of the Lord's as well.
The Lords could be a sort of senate that deals with signing foreign treaties, going to war, representing constituents etc.
The big problem is what happens if Labour get the most votes / seats in the UK and the Conservatives get the most votes / seats in England. We could have an English first minister and UK prime minister. The problem is will anyone want to go in to politics and fight elections just to be in charge of foreign and defence issues, while someone else does education, health, immigration etc.?
And do you think that will change what the poltical parties want to do? It might in some cases but not by much and say if they gave free tuition fees/free prescriptions in England, its bound to be at a cost of other services being cut or other taxes going up.
Its the principle. Progressive parties are always banging on about fairness. Well Scottish MP's voting on legislation that affects only England is not fair, when English MP's can not vote on their legislation.
The cost of this principle that you hold so dear would mean yet another layer of Government which would cost a fair bit and is unnecessary.
The fact that England gets the lion share of most things means that people should not object to what other countries of the UK get as they are being cut short imo, esp Scotland. Scotland seems to put in a lot more than what they get back.
p.s. An English parliament could cause more troubles than its worth too. It could cause power struglles between who should rule the roost, the leader of the "Federal Parliament" or the leader of the biggest party in an English Parliament. Some people might say the way round that would be for the party leaders to try and get elected to both places but what if they can't for one reason or another or if their federal seat is a non english seat in the first place?
If the jobs are held by different people, I think there is a high chance it would lead to power struggles and will lead to a complete break up of the UK at some point. England would be alright on the whole if the UK breaks up, Wales might be able to hold their own to an extent but would struggle I think as for Northern Ireland, would go back to Ireland? I wonder what the unionists would do?
President Obama famously put bills before congress such as healthcare or Obamacare. A UK PM would not be able to do that. Imagine vote for me and I will makes sure we err have enough tanks and sign some treaties. That will get the electorate excited and voting.
Immigration will be devolved. It's obvious that some countries want more and some want less.
I have a horrible feeling that we as a nation are getting in to a constitutional situation that is not going to work. Saying that, having looked at what's on offer from Westminster if they vote no, its a rubbish package compared to independence and may not require federalism.
What might work is a directly elected UK president to deal with foreign affairs and defending the nation, but we have a monarch as head of state already.
The EU style solution of a rotating PM job between the four first ministers might work as well.
The northern Ireland option may work. As England is the biggest country it's first minster always gets the UK PM job as well. Scotland gets the foreign secretary job, Wales the EU commissioner and Northern Ireland the UN ambassador or something like that. All four parliaments would need to ratify any treaties or could decide to sign individually.
Getting rid of UK MP's and parliament would save money and answer the complaints about another tier of government. It would also mean two different parties would not be elected for first minister and PM.
Well if all MP's voted on the budget or the fixed allocation of money to each department, then everything that happens after that would only concern English MP's.
So if the education budget over the next year has been approved by all MP's as two billion, how that money was spent and the curriculum etc. would be a matter only for English MP's.
Of course the Scot's are being offered tax raising powers, so if the English must have them too. In which case they will not need to involve non English MP's if they provide the money as well.
I think the biggest issue is not that but what happens if Labour get the most seat in the UK, but the Conservatives get the most seats in England. If Ed Milband is PM, but any health or education policies he comes up with are voted down by a Conservative majority English parliament, we have a constitutional problem.
On the other hand carrying on as we are now with England being treated unfairly is unacceptable.
So WHERE does it say that as a country Scotland, Wales, Ireland North, are allowed to have an assembly, parliament or whatever they want to call it to govern their country, but England cannot???
Don't see that as a problem. Elections to an English parliament would be the same as to the Scottish one. If Milliband was standing for the UK Parliament, he wouldn't be standing on health and education issues because those matters would be devolve to the national parliaments.
The distribution of wealth, services and resources across all English counties instead of the bulk going to London. All English counties being treated one and the same, and not giving London preferential treatment over other counties, perhaps?
How do you know that would happen? I doubt it would at all. If anything an indpendent England would just see London becoming even more expensive to live in as would the surrounding home counties.
An English parliament will not do anything that Westminster doesn't do already! It will mean more layers of Government more politicians, more expenses and power struggles and thats worth it because you feel left out?
Why don't you look at why Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland got their devolved powers instead of thinking England has been left out. Westminster is in London. It makes decisions for the UK but especially England and Wales. It was never right to run Scotland from a small Scottish department in London. People in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland know their countries better than what London does and before you say the same about England, again, Westminster is in London, not in Edinburgh, Cardif or Belfast.
I'm not saying it WILL happen but it could be a possibility.
With the Parliament at Westminster (not the devolved assmeblies though) taking so many recesses that amounts to 6-7 months off a year, I doubt very much that they will get round to loosening their grips on power let alone even look at ammending the laws needed to make such things happen.
Logically yes. Because Scots would be able to vote on issues that didn't concern them - ike income tax in the rest of the UK - but English MPs couldn't on Scottish income tax. .
But practicality intervenes. if you have a Milliband government of the UK - on a majority that comes from Welsh and Scottish seats - but a Conservative majority in England, who governs? Can Milliband declare war, and do not much else? Can you have a UK chancellor who doesn't control spending, or overall taxation levels, and has no control over measures for growth, or regional policy, or national infrastructure, or education?
There's also accountability. Who is to blame for failures - when national and UK parliaments and ministers will just blame each other? Who can promise what - if the finance for policy, and the execution of policy are split between different governments? Its a recipe for log jam (as in the US) and voter anger. If you go further, and give regions more say too, things get worse, There's then even less accountability, rows break out between regions, and the regions themselves will end up representing wherever most of their voters live - at the expense of both smaller communities and the nation.