About Conservative Home

Conservative Home's debate blogs

Conservative Home's reference blogs

How is David Cameron doing?

Conservative blogs

test

Contributors test

« London Salmon: A new structure for London Government | Main | Charlie Elphicke and Mark Field MP: Modernisation of public sector pensions to pay for 50% council tax discount for pensioners »

Comments

Rachel Joyce

This does have alot going for it. The current system is not fair.
However, a small first step might be to only allow English MPs to vote on English only matters - and English & Welsh on E&W only matters - we could keep days in parliament set aside for these, and scots mps can go back to their constituencies then (or be paid part time!!).
It would be a way of testing the water for gradual change, but also introduce some fairness (perhaps then funding would also be fair!!)

DavidTBreaker

The current system is unfair due to the West Lothian Question, but this is not the answer for many reasons. It would mean having more ministers, more departments and more costs. You also couldn't devolve immigration either, in case the policies differed, unless you restricted movement between the constituent nations by having sepperate nationalities, which makes calling it a 'union' a sham. Breaking up the UK will simply mean more powers going to the EU. Federalism means another layer of politicians.

A far better idea is English votes on English laws, with Scotland and Wales offered the same as an alternative to having sepperate devolved bodies. Then greater powers - like those of the Welsh assembly - should be devolved to county and town level.

A Ellis

EVEL sounds fine, until it affects funding via the Barnett formula. What would happen if funding was reduced to Scotland because top up fees were abolished through EVEL.
I can see occasions when legal action could possibly be taken by Scottish MP's if legislation indirectly affects their constituents.And would English legislation still have to pass through the House of Lords, as devolved matters in the respective Scottish and Welsh assemblies don't.
Why do people advocate a lesser settlement for England, than the other home nations?
An English Parliament is the only just solution.

Toque

David: "A far better idea is English votes on English laws, with Scotland and Wales offered the same as an alternative to having sepperate devolved bodies. Then greater powers - like those of the Welsh assembly - should be devolved to county and town level."

So what you are proposing is EVoEL and Scottish Votes on Scottish Laws. Do you like flogging dead horses? Because that's what you will be doing if you think that you can swan up to Scotland and convince them to abolish the Scottish Parliament - the 'settled will' of the Scottish people - to experiment with your idea.

Give it up. EVoELs will not work, not now, not ever, not in any conceivable situation. Hopefully the Democracy Task Force will confirm this otherwise the Conservatives will end up hammering the nails into the union's coffin lid.

steve

All of the arguments on this subject are very interesting but are completely academic as the EU now rule this country and any national parliaments are merely parish councils in a European nation. When are the population of this country going to realise that politics here are no more than an elaborate charade benefiting only the gangs of career politicians doing very nicely out of it.

Opinicus

The advantage of this proprosal over EVfEL is that it formalises an English Parliament without the extra costs of a separate parliament but also without the endless problems created by the Speaker, currently a Labour scotsman, having the right to decide whether a bill should be voted on by English MPs only or the whole House. As a bonus it also sorts out the issue of House of Lords reform.

It means no more ministers or departments than now as it doesn't change the Scots current parliamentary arrangements and only upgrades the Welsh, which is fair enough for them. Obviously all the Whitehall departments will just be renamed.

I defer to no one in my loathing of the EU but a couple of the ultras posting here seem to think that nothing should be done, that all political debate should be put off, until we are out of the EU. If we carry on as we are then we will never pull out of the EU. This sort of constitutional change in another area, the resugence of English nationalism, offers the possibility of a change of the zeitgeist, of opening the possibility to even more radical change. Only by weakening the resistance to political change, exhibited by say Jon Gale above, do we have the slightest prospect that leaving the EU will become a serious political possibility and not just the pipe dream of committed anoraks. English nationalism is the Trojan Horse of Euroscepticism. Join me inside.

Ed Abrams

if people think that EVEL is the answer to the discrimination that WE english face then they are wrong.
it won't change the barnett formula issue or the fact that we are the only nation in Europe without it's own parliament. one of the big issues on EVEL is that laws passed by English only MP's will still have an effect on Scotland and Wales therefore their MP's will demand the right to vote, this policy causes confuseion, only an English Parliament will offer us English true and fair democracy.

Simon Coote

@ Mark Wadsworth 3.08pm- i'm for all 4 parts of the UK going their own way. The respective assemblies/parliaments that there are now will demand more powers sooner -or later - spending even more revenue raised by the English tax-payer! Personally , I didn't vote for the Scottish Parliament- but it's here to stay providing many moments of grade 1 comedy (First Ministers questions is a hoot)! Haven't seen much of the Welsh Assembly- i nodded off during a 'debate'. And I've absolutely no interest whatsoever in the Northern Irish Assembly!

Mark Wadsworth

Jonathan, congrat's on that big fat green tick!

Philip Chaston


There are a number of drawbacks associated with the proposals presented above, not least the failure to include the word Crown in the presentation.

Just as the Labour party has proved a vandal in destroying convention and undermining checks and balances, why, as Conservatives, do we stoop to 'back of the envelope' constructions that do not appear to understand or value our own history

Any proposal that begins with the requirement that we abolish Parliament opens up a whole can of worms. Is this based on a written constitution, on an Act, or on a final dissolution of the previous Parliament?

Are all Royal prerogatives and privileges finally abolished?

It seems that enthusiastic English makeovers could do more damage than Labour has yet managed to inflict.

In the first instance, we should look at repeal, and then towards reforms that maintain continuity. These do not and therefore fail the test of conservatism.

Paul Robinson

YES Finally!! This issue gets on the political agenda (well even if it's just CH it's a start). DC and team - please think seriously about this policy!! It will re-invigorate and reconnect the electorate with politics.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Advertising

  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
Blog powered by Typepad

Subscribe

  • Conservative Home's
    free eMailing List
    Enter your name and email address below:
    Name:
    Email:
    Subscribe    
    Unsubscribe 

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker